Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2022/04
corrected spelling Ewkada (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
empty after correction Ewkada (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ewkada: Closed (empty, speedy delete) Josh (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Cat for organizing deleted, out of scope files. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bvcitizen. No reason to keep this Cat. Jahobr (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jahobr: Closed (empty; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Cat for organizing deleted, out of scope files. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bvcitizen. No reason to keep this Cat. Jahobr (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jahobr: Closed (empty; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Cat for organizing deleted, out of scope files. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bvcitizen. No reason to keep this Cat. Jahobr (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jahobr: Closed (empty; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Cat for organizing deleted, out of scope files. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bvcitizen. No reason to keep this Cat. Jahobr (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jahobr: Closed (empty; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
This category could be better organised. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination, I've fixed the issues. Obviously 
Keep as a redirect. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Closed (withdrawn) Josh (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Redundant and unuseful category that encourages COM:WEBHOSTing. The sole occupant file has been moved to Category:Upo and Category:Sliced vegetables which are more reasonable categories. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Done: speedily deleted as empty cat. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Spam link Prince ovy (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- What's the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInternetContributer (talk • contribs) 14:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Blatant advertising. --Achim55 (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
This cat is not being used any more. Images move elsewhere Judithcomm (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
@Judithcomm: Closed (empty; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Cat for organizing deleted, out of scope files. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bvcitizen. No reason to keep this Cat. Jahobr (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jahobr: Closed (empty; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
No castle in Arakelots Vank, can check at heritage list hy:Աճարկուտի պատմության և մշակույթի անշարժ հուշարձանների ցանկ (Տավուշի մարզ) / Cultural heritage monuments in Acharkut, Tavush Kareyac (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@Kareyac: Closed (empty; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
This looks like it is the same as Category:Newspapers in German but there is a split in German Wikipedia so maybe I'm missing something. This is the only one with a split at Category:Newspapers by language. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- You are right, both categories mean the same and should be merged. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ricky81682 and Luftschiffhafen: Closed (resolved) Josh (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
It looks like this category name is not correct. Is this about the Nakti Dam? Then it should be renamed to Category:Nakti Dam. Otherwise this category should perhaps be merged into one of the subcategories of Category:Jharkhand. JopkeB (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 | Category:Geographical location of jharkhand | Merge into | Category:Jharkhand | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | with only 1 image, not seeing a need for Category:Nakti Dam just yet (but if there are more images of it, then by all means, create that under Category:Jharkhand somewhere. The lone picture in the category can go to Category:Jharkhand or be sorted into the relevant existing structure there. | |||
 | Josh (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
Thanks, Josh, for your suggestion. --JopkeB (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:Geographical location of jharkhand is not a good category name. The one photo has been moved to Category:Dams in Jharkhand. This category has been nominated for deletion. --JopkeB (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes i am agree one image can't suitable to this title. But i will send more images in this category .
Paint or Paints? 191.126.26.159 02:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Not done: Kept as is. --Achim55 (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Nonsense description about a fictional language, redundant to Category:100 BC. Lord Belbury (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
circumized 2A00:1028:83BC:81E2:A990:DE7F:7511:65AB 10:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept, nonsense. -- CptViraj (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Wrong title. {{User|POS78}} talk 18:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Question @POS78: What are you proposing? Josh (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner, Tepe Eskandari. {{User|POS78}} talk 12:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Significant. {{User|POS78}} talk 18:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
WTF even is this? Dronebogus (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's an empty category. I've tagged it as an empty page to get it deleted. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well yes I see that, and agree with you, but what IS it? Dronebogus (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Closing; category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Quite the same as /La même à 2 images près que : Category:Deportation of Jews from Marseille 1943 Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Closing: redirected to correctly-spelled category. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Illogical category with only one file (since removed by me) Dronebogus (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Category tagged as empty page to get it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
This aircraft registration covers two different aircraft so should become a dab with content and categorization split into Category:C-GWXZ (Airbus A220-100) and Category:C-GWXZ (Fairchild Metroliner). Josh (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
| Category:Embraer-FMA CBA-123 Vector / IA-70 Parana | Move to/Rename as | Category:Embraer/FMA CBA-123 Vector | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| This was a joint-venture, with each company's production to be under its own name. CBA-123 Vector was the project name, with Embraer production to be designated EMB 123 and the FMA units to be designated IA-70. Only two Embraer examples were built (the first FMA example was never completed) before the program was halted. All of the current media is of the Embraer EMB 123 prototypes. If we later get images of the IA-70, we should divide this into two sub-cats, Category:Embraer EMB 123 and Category:FMA IA-70, but until then the current category is sufficient. | |||
| Josh (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Why is "(523577)" in the name of the category? JopkeB (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- It turns out it is the number of a monument (Rijksmonument). I changed the name of the category to Category:Gaslantaarn Ede (monument, 1923) and added the number to the description of the category. --JopkeB (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Changed category name to better one and added the (monument) number to the description of the category. --JopkeB (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Category with only 1 file. And possibly and attempt to promote the individual --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The subject has 2 WP articles so Commons:Category inclusion criteria#General criteria item 3 is satisfied. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've marked it for speedy deletion as File:Akash Bashir.png has been deleted as having no permission. As noted having a WP article probably guarantees notability if there is even just 1 page but the category now has none. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Done: Deleted by Yann. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Maintenance category that is unlikely to be used A1Cafel (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Maintenance category unlikely to be used A1Cafel (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Not needed KevinNov3 (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Support categorization by year is sufficient. Users can decide for themselves what range of years is relevant for their purposes. Josh (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Josh. We should also include Category:Jimmy Carter before 1976 for the same reason. These categories seem to be trying to include the years when Carter was not the president, but users can pick their own time frames. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
@KevinNov3 and Auntof6: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The category tree 'free culture > Free culture projects > Libre culture' doesn't seem to make sense, especially when both the libre culture and free culture pages say they are said to be the same as each other. Use of both categories seems to be the same, too. Proposing merge. YuriNikolai (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@YuriNikolai: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Flickr upload bot has been inactive since 2014, this category is unlikely to be used. I don't know the purpose of keeping this A1Cafel (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@A1Cafel and Jeff G.: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Please delete this empty category; it has been replaced by the Category:Inscriptions by Marko Apih Hladnikm (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
@Hladnikm: Closed (no objections; empty) Josh (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Should be renamed to "People with FN SCAR-H PR/TPR" to cover non-USSOCOM rifles Dvaderv2 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
@Dvaderv2: Closed (subsumed into discussion at: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/04/Category:Mk 20 Sniper Support Rifle) Josh (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
please delete this empty category with the wrong date Hladnikm (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@Hladnikm: Closed (empty; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Too ambiguous, "Forest in Sanxia District" is too vague. I don't know if this is the name of the forest or what. I tried contacting the creator (User:Billofocham), but he hasn't responded for more than 10 months, so it's not necessary to keep the category in this case.--Kai3952 (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- The name of the category is not too vague; it is grammatically correct and exact. The word "forest," in its singular, general sense, means forest-type vegetation, woodland and similar, not a particular forest. The word "forests," plural, means a number of specific, possibly named, individual forests.
- That said, the contested category is empty and may be removed without harm. I have no objection. Billofocham (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Billofocham: 問題不在於「Forest」，而是你命名「Forest in Sanxia District」。此外，你到現在仍然沒有回答我問題。--Kai3952 (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
@Kai3952 and Billofocham: Closed (empty; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Template:No license own work was deleted. This maintenance category is no longer useful. New uploads without license is now located at "Category:Media without a license as of <date>" A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann--A1Cafel (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
What is the difference between "Dutch East Indies" and "Netherlands Indies"? In this main category are a lot of subcategories with "Netherlands Indies" or "Netherlands East Indies" in the category name instead of "Dutch East Indies". Can we have one name for all categories involved? And what would then be the best name? JopkeB (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Parent Category:Dutch East Indies is correctly named. Sub-cats with "Netherlands Indies" or "Netherlands East Indies" should be renamed to "Dutch East Indies". (ref: Universality principle) Josh (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
@JopkeB: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Josh, for your contributions to this discussion. How will it go on? There are 194 categories with "Netherlands Indies" in the name. I am used to the procedure that the person who closes a discussion also makes the changes. But in this case, because there are so many changes to do, I'll be glad to help. Agree? --JopkeB (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Of course! I will do them as I can, but this is a big one. Ideally of course when I close a CfD I try and do the change immediately, but some take days or longer to do, like this one. The CfD sets the consensus out, then anyone is free to help in conforming the categories to the consensus. Josh (
talk) 05:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Seems a good plan to me. --JopkeB (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Done --JopkeB (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic category, vandalism magnet. In other words, lives up to its name. Dronebogus (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: Closed (empty; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Symbols of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Columns of Gediminas on seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic are historical forms of statehood of Lithuania and not different (former) countries (see: History of Lithuania). Kingdom of Poland/France are not regarded as former countries in the territory of Poland/France and such categories do not exist, so there should not be double standards for Lithuania. Consequently, this category should be deleted. -- Pofka (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Pofka: You mean that the said administrative entities were exactly matching the extention of the current Lithuania? If so, no opposition to delete the category. -- Blackcat
09:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Blackcat: It is one and the same thing. According to the preamble of the Constitution of Lithuania (online English version):
The Lithuanian Nation
– having created the State of Lithuania many centuries ago,
– having based its legal foundations on the Lithuanian Statutes and the Constitutions of the Republic of Lithuania,
– having for centuries staunchly defended its freedom and independence,
– having preserved its spirit, native language, writing, and customs,
– embodying the innate right of the human being and the Nation to live and create freely in the land of their fathers and forefathers—in the independent State of Lithuania,
– fostering national concord in the land of Lithuania,
– striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and State under the rule of law,
by the will of the citizens of the reborn State of Lithuania, adopts and proclaims this Constitution.
- Various forms of statehood of Lithuania: Duchy of Lithuania, Kingdom of Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Lithuania (sometimes described simply as Lithuanian Empire) existed previously and were created by the same Lithuanian nation. It is the same Lithuania, but with different forms of government (e.g. monarchies). -- Pofka (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, @Pofka: , if nobody else has oppositions, for me it's fine to delete the category then. -- Blackcat 11:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, @Pofka: , if nobody else has oppositions, for me it's fine to delete the category then. -- Blackcat
- Various forms of statehood of Lithuania: Duchy of Lithuania, Kingdom of Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Lithuania (sometimes described simply as Lithuanian Empire) existed previously and were created by the same Lithuanian nation. It is the same Lithuania, but with different forms of government (e.g. monarchies). -- Pofka (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Pofka and Blackcat: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep @Joshbaumgartner, Pofka, and Blackcat: Few have seen this discussion. And the category should not be deleted. User:Pofka is misleading. Grand Duchy of Lithuania existed from the 13th century to 1795. The state language was Old Belarusian language (Ruthenian). Then the principality became part of the Russian Empire. In 1918, after the collapse of the Russian Empire, emerged Republic of Lithuania, Belarusian People's Republic and Ukrainian People's Republic. On the territory of Vilna Region arose Middle Lithuania, which later became part of Poland. Thus, it is wrong to assert that the Republic of Lithuania is a direct continuation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnny Moor: You have already taken part in a similar discussion. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Blackcat and Joshbaumgartner: User Pofka did not mention about the same discussions, where the strong objections were provided. I believe this fact is a bold evidence that the behavior of this user is disruptive. If anyone is interested, I have more evidence about tricky and disruptive behavior of this user. And I believe this user should be stopped. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment @Kazimier Lachnovič and Pofka: If a user is engaging in problematic behavior, COM:ANU is the proper place to raise that and seek resolution, including blocking if warranted. CfD discussions should however stick to the specifics of the categories and proposals under discussion, not the users who may be involved. Thank you. Josh (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment It was explained many times that various statehood periods of Lithuania is the same Lithuania. Users from Russia/Belarus: Лобачев Владимир, Kazimier Lachnovič, Johnny Moor are aggressive followers of the pseudoscientific Litvinist propaganda which is not recognized internationally. Nationalistic propaganda has no place in Wiki projects and these users are spreading the same lies again and again. There finally should be an end to their disruptive actions. -- Pofka (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Лобачев Владимир and Kazimier Lachnovič, if you want to continue the discussion fine. But the discssion can be reproposed as many times one wants without being in bad faith, and on these pages good faith must always been assumed. Opening several times a CfD on the same topic might seem senseless or frustrating but is legit, and for this reason I hope not to hear once more accusations of bad faith or agenda pushing, hope to have been clear. -- Blackcat 23:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. I have had some experience with COM:ANU and found it to be just a waste of time, cause no one really cares about any evidence. Since opening several the same discussions (a very effective way to waste someone's time) in order to push their POV somehow is considered here as legit, all that I can do is to repeat that I'm strongly against such proposals. There are no reliable sources were provided that modern Lithuania (with own name Lietuva) is an obvious successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or a Kingdom of Lithuania (with own name Litva). On the other hand, Andrew Wilson, a British historian specializing in Eastern Europe, writes in his book Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship (Yale University Press, 2012): The entity referred to as medieval ‘Lithuania’ in fact had the full name of ‘Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samogitia’. Its short name was ‘Litva’. This is not the same thing as ‘Lithuania’. In the modern Lithuanian language, the word for ‘Lithuania’ is Lietuva (p. 21—22). <...> Most of what is now Belarus was part of ‘Litva’ proper. (p. 33). Moreover, another historian specializing in the history of Central and Eastern Europe Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder writes in his book The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 (Yale University Press, 2003): During the period of dynastic union with Poland, Lithuania became an East Slavic realm in which the gentry enjoyed rights relative to the sovereign (p. 22). Before 1863, the most common self-appellation of the largest group in Russia’s Northwest Territory — Belarusian-speaking peasants — was apparently “Lithuanian” (p. 49). By removing the historical sense of the term “Lithuanian” in the popular mind, Russian power cleared the way for a modern, ethnic definition of Lithuania, and simplified the task of Lithuanian activists (p. 50). <...> The conflation of an old politonym with a new ethnonym (“Lithuania”) prevented non-Belarusians from seeing the connection between modern Belarus and the early modern Grand Duchy of Lithuania (p. 81) <...> As we have seen, the traditions of the Grand Duchy were altered beyond recognition by Lithuanian and Polish national movements, as well as Russian imperial and Soviet states. They have changed least perhaps in the lands we now call Belarus (p. 281). And such opinion is quite popular among modern scientists, e.g. Swedish-American historian Dr. Prof. Per Anders Rudling, specializing in the areas of nationalism in his The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906–1931 (2015, University of Pittsburgh Press) writes: Lithuania — or Letuva, Litva, Litwa, Lietuva, or Lite, as it was called in the five local languages — was commonly not thought of in the same terms as it is today, as an ethnic nation-state of the Lithuanian people. Given these definitely reliable SPECIALIZED sources the Category:Former countries in Lithuania can not be removed. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- All I can say for other users is read article Litvinism and you will understand what type of nationalistic attitude Kazimier Lachnovič and his friend Лобачев Владимир has. The current Republic of Lithuania is not an ethnic nation-state as 1/3 of its population in capital Vilnius is non-Lithuanian and more than 15% of the country's entire population is non-Lithuanian. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the same Lithuania, created by the same Lithuanian nation, but on a larger scale – Lithuanians from Vilnius ruled large territories of the present-day Belarus and Ukraine (Cambridge scientist Stephen Christopher Rowell describe it simply as the Lithuanian Empire). There are no valid arguments why the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Lithuanian Empire) was "non-Lithuanian". Just because Lithuania lost its previously controlled territories it did not become a different state (Encyclopedia Britannica articles supporting claims that the Lithuanians in the past ruled Belarus and Ukraine: 1, 2). For example, Poland also lost control of the Ukrainian and Belarusian territories and nobody proposes ridiculous ideas that Poland is not Poland. By the way, do not forget that the majority of the population of the British Empire was Indian. I cannot see any other way to finally put an end to these ridiculous battlegrounds than to block Litvinist users who are spreading their pseudoscientific hatred and tries to falsely prove that Lithuania is not Lithuania again and again. Pay attention that categories: Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Symbols of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were created by user Лобачев Владимир and category Columns of Gediminas on seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created by Kazimier Lachnovič. This is not a universally accepted agenda, but a disruptive anti-Lithuanian activity mostly by two nationalistic users from Russia/Belarus (two authoritarian states full of propaganda). Seeing how aggressively these two users are spreading pseudoscientific propaganda about a long-standing European country (with history since at least 1009), it is likely that they work for governmental institutions of Belarus/Russia (e.g. Internet Research Agency, Russian web brigades). @Blackcat: please strongly consider taking serious actions against these two users as there clearly are no chances that they will give up their nationalistic attitude and stop their disruptive anti-Lithuanian activity peacefully. Two years ago Kazimier Lachnovič was calling Lithuanians as rubbish (see: 1, 2, 3) and there clearly isn't any positive change in his attitude towards Lithuania and Lithuanians. I think that respect for other nations and countries is essential. -- Pofka (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Pofka: if there will be violations of the pillars and the policies of NPOV I'll take measure, meanwhile please, assume good faith you too, or this discussion is at risk of becoming a brawl. -- Blackcat 18:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The point of view that the modern Belarusians are the rightful heirs of the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania (maybe equally with the modern Lithuanians, which is being discussed when the Belarus become a free country) has nothing to do with either Lukashenko (as the head of the Russian occupation administration of Belarus), or the Russian regime as a whole. What they both really do is en:Russification of Belarus (the more complete article in Belarusian be-tarask:Русіфікацыя Беларусі), and the Belarusian (so call "Litvinist") point of view is based on the dominance of the Belarusian language in the GDL. On the other hand, statements that Belarusians have nothing to do with the GDL (that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is not a historical form of modern statehood of Belarus) are very convenient for Putin's supporters (mentioned before Internet Research Agency, Russian web brigades), as they justify the Russian occupation of Belarus, which is presented as a liberation of "White Russians" (other Russians, who never have their own state in the history according to such chauvinistic point of view) from the "Polish-Lithuanian yoke". --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Pofka: if there will be violations of the pillars and the policies of NPOV I'll take measure, meanwhile please, assume good faith you too, or this discussion is at risk of becoming a brawl. -- Blackcat
- All I can say for other users is read article Litvinism and you will understand what type of nationalistic attitude Kazimier Lachnovič and his friend Лобачев Владимир has. The current Republic of Lithuania is not an ethnic nation-state as 1/3 of its population in capital Vilnius is non-Lithuanian and more than 15% of the country's entire population is non-Lithuanian. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the same Lithuania, created by the same Lithuanian nation, but on a larger scale – Lithuanians from Vilnius ruled large territories of the present-day Belarus and Ukraine (Cambridge scientist Stephen Christopher Rowell describe it simply as the Lithuanian Empire). There are no valid arguments why the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Lithuanian Empire) was "non-Lithuanian". Just because Lithuania lost its previously controlled territories it did not become a different state (Encyclopedia Britannica articles supporting claims that the Lithuanians in the past ruled Belarus and Ukraine: 1, 2). For example, Poland also lost control of the Ukrainian and Belarusian territories and nobody proposes ridiculous ideas that Poland is not Poland. By the way, do not forget that the majority of the population of the British Empire was Indian. I cannot see any other way to finally put an end to these ridiculous battlegrounds than to block Litvinist users who are spreading their pseudoscientific hatred and tries to falsely prove that Lithuania is not Lithuania again and again. Pay attention that categories: Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Symbols of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were created by user Лобачев Владимир and category Columns of Gediminas on seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created by Kazimier Lachnovič. This is not a universally accepted agenda, but a disruptive anti-Lithuanian activity mostly by two nationalistic users from Russia/Belarus (two authoritarian states full of propaganda). Seeing how aggressively these two users are spreading pseudoscientific propaganda about a long-standing European country (with history since at least 1009), it is likely that they work for governmental institutions of Belarus/Russia (e.g. Internet Research Agency, Russian web brigades). @Blackcat: please strongly consider taking serious actions against these two users as there clearly are no chances that they will give up their nationalistic attitude and stop their disruptive anti-Lithuanian activity peacefully. Two years ago Kazimier Lachnovič was calling Lithuanians as rubbish (see: 1, 2, 3) and there clearly isn't any positive change in his attitude towards Lithuania and Lithuanians. I think that respect for other nations and countries is essential. -- Pofka (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- If I got the discussion right it is about if the current Lithuania is an direct replacement of the old ones? If this would be the case this category should be deleted because it is not an former county it is just an old name of the current one? I think this discussion about the history is not needed. Other "Former countries" categories containing countries on some parts of area of the current state and direct predecessor states of which some laws from are still in place. So this would have to be discussed for all "Former countries" categories. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- It must be understood that the Republic of Lithuania is not a continuation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They have a common name, but not the essence. The territory and language were different. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was part of the Russian Empire for more than a hundred years. It was after the revolution of 1917 that the Republic of Lithuania arose on the territory of Samogitia. And only in 1939, Stalin gave Lithuania the Vilna region, which was mainly inhabited by Belarusians and Poles. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Category:Former countries in Germany also links to territories not on the area of the current Germany and with other languages. This why I say if we change this here we would need to change this for the other cats too. --GPSLeo (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Dear colleague @GPSLeo: , as you correctly noted, there is a serious confusion between state entities and their heirs. As you have already correctly noticed, there is a predecessor state, and there is a successor state. The predecessor state can be considered a state whose state institutions have been reformatted or transferred directly or indirectly to the successor state, while the successor state bases its power on those laws and institutions that were given by their predecessor directly, of course, there may be serious changes over time, this is normal. To which States can examples of successor States be given? For example, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, Byzantium was a direct successor of Roman power with continuity of power and the legacy of Roman laws and institutions. At the same time, when Byzantium was captured by the Crusaders during the crusade, when the state was restored, all institutions and laws were completely restored. The example was rather rude, but a newer example can be given: the Republic of Turkey, which is the heir of the Ottoman Empire, which directly transferred its powers to the authorities of the Republic of Turkey, during the reign of Mustafa Kemal, thus becoming a kind of legal successor of the state. These were examples of successor States. In the modern world, there are many examples when a state bears the name of an older country, but at the same time it may have little to do with it. For example, the Republic of Macedonia, now Northern Macedonia, which has nothing to do with ancient Macedonia, due to historical and cultural reasons. The same can be said with Ghana, the Ghana Empire was previously a state located in Africa, but with the passage of time absorbed by stronger players. Modern Ghana got its name based on an earlier predecessor, but it also cannot be called a predecessor, since it is simply not in the same place where ancient Ghana was. As my colleagues have already said, modern Lithuania cannot be the legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, since 123 years have passed since the destruction of this state at the end of the 18th century and has no continuity of institutions, no continuity of laws and power or a legitimate heir of the bearer of power. Not to mention the fact that the form of government in one and the other state differed, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania there was a monarchy, while the Republic of Lithuania was created on the basis of republican princelings. Therefore, all the claims on the part of the participant of the Profka, I can only call groundless, and the accusations on his part in terms of "Litvinism" can in turn be called an undisguised manifestation of Lithuanian nationalism and bad faith, which is trying to erase Belarusians and Ukrainians from the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, who were and are the same cultural heirs of this state as Lithuania. But, none of these countries can be politically the heir of this state, since state institutions in none of the states have political and legal direct succession from their predecessor. Only culturally, the cultural successors are Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians. --Johnny Moor (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I understand what you mean. But if we change this here we also would need to clean up the other "Former countries" categories. Many other "Former countries" have states added with the a status same as in this case. --GPSLeo (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- It must be understood that the Republic of Lithuania is not a continuation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They have a common name, but not the essence. The territory and language were different. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was part of the Russian Empire for more than a hundred years. It was after the revolution of 1917 that the Republic of Lithuania arose on the territory of Samogitia. And only in 1939, Stalin gave Lithuania the Vilna region, which was mainly inhabited by Belarusians and Poles. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept. The constitution of Lithuania is correct in sense that the Lithuanian nation has created the State of Lithuania many centuries ago, but during time the country was less and less Lithuanian (except name, of course). Lithuanian constitution says "reborn State of Lithuania", quite vague words, not necessarily meaning legal successor.
en:Casimir IV Jagiellon (grand duke 1440–1492) was the last grand duke, who spoke Lithuaninan. For centuries Lithuania was governed by grand duke, who understood no Lithuanian at all. What kind of predecessor is such state? I do not know, who is the last grand duke, who spoke Belarussian language. Maybe it is even impossible to say, because Polish and Belarussian language are similar and were even more similar in the past.
en:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth has no legal successors, even Lithuanian SSR is not legal predecessor of Lithuania, but Lithuania has geographical predecessors and the disputed category is needed for collecting geographical predecessors. Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic are totally different countries from each other and from current Lithuania.
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is also not a predecessor of Belarus. Probably Belarus has only one predecessor: Belarussian SSR. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Taivo: I guess you should find better arguments for your decision. Thinking in your arguments one may called Estonia is not a succesor of the Estonian state established in 1918, since it became less and less Estonian, had second language Russian and almost 25 percent of its population is Russian. I will not even talks about you weak understanding of the law calling the term in the Constitution of Lithuania "reborn State of Lithuania". The restitution of the Lithuanian state in 16 February 1918 was based on its historical continuity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Independence_of_Lithuania. --- Ke an (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- From 1775 to 1917, the Russian Empire was the legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Republic of Lithuania was created not on the basis of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but on the basis of a part of the Russian Empire. And political statements do not change this fact. The Belarusian People's Republic also claimed historical rights to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Only russofashists can claim that "From 1775 to 1917, the Russian Empire was the legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.". Occupation doesn't give legal rights. Lithuania as a hegemon and founder nation of the Lithuanian Kingdom and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is the only successor of all its historic forms of the Lithuanian state. Belarussians (that term never existed before 1918) never had a statehood up till 1918 nor was a nation and a subject of history. Its formation is still in the process. -- Ke an (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- From 1775 to 1917, the Russian Empire was the legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Republic of Lithuania was created not on the basis of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but on the basis of a part of the Russian Empire. And political statements do not change this fact. The Belarusian People's Republic also claimed historical rights to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Only russofashists can claim. This is from a member blocked on the English Wikipedia: You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for nationalist POV-pushing and personal attacks. It looks like history is repeating itself here. I ask the administrators to intervene in connection with personal attacks. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing personal. Please read about russofashism/rashism and its ideology here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashism -- Ke an (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- This discussion is closed, if you are willing to discuss on the topic please open a CfD for Category:Former countries by current country or create a proposal. --GPSLeo (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing personal. Please read about russofashism/rashism and its ideology here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashism -- Ke an (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Only russofashists can claim. This is from a member blocked on the English Wikipedia: You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for nationalist POV-pushing and personal attacks. It looks like history is repeating itself here. I ask the administrators to intervene in connection with personal attacks. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Vì ko mổ 2001:EE0:48DD:C8F0:38E5:1872:6E8E:6157 04:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Not done: Nothing to do. --Achim55 (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Cat for organizing deleted, out of scope files. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bvcitizen. No reason to keep this Cat. Jahobr (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jahobr: Closed (empty; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Cat for organizing deleted, out of scope files. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bvcitizen. No reason to keep this Cat. Jahobr (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jahobr: Closed (empty; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
C'est une chapelle, pas une église Fr.Latreille (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
| Category:Église Saint-Édouard de la Madrague | Move to/Rename as | Category:Chapelle Saint-Édouard de la Madrague | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| per comment by Fr.Latreille (talk · contribs) | |||
| Josh (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
OK for renaming --Fr.Latreille (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Wikidata item would need adjustments also. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Agreed. Josh (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
@Fr.Latreille and Auntof6: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Same deal as [1] Boylarva99 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This is a valid intersection of Category:Birds of California and Category:Birds in flight with sufficient content to justify. Upmerging into parents would worsen the management issue, not improve it. Josh (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment This discussion should probably be merged with Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/04/Category:Birds of California in water. Josh (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
@Boylarva99: Closed (subsume into Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/04/Category:Birds of California in water) Josh (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:Colón sign looks like a better name to me, both to distinguish it from the Category:Colons (:) and to be consistent with w:Costa Rican colón. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support correct accent mark is appropriate for category name. (ref: Commons:Categories#Category names) Josh (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
@1234qwer1234qwer4: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Which bot is responsible for adding {{Uncategorized}}? Even there is, they still put it at "All media needing categories as of <year>" and "Category:Media needing categories as of <date>". I don't think this category is necessary A1Cafel (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted the category was used by User:CategorizationBot, but that bot is no longer running. Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention is part of the same structure. Maybe Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Maintenance categories is a good place to continue. Multichill (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Can this category be merged into Category:Beschryving van 'sGraven-hage, 1730 or the other way around? Now it is unclear which file should be in which category. JopkeB (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- You're right, I don't know why the second category was created. Category:Beschryving van 'sGraven-hage was the first to be created and there was no discussion opened before the second was created some months later. Adding a date to the title of the category is useful when there is a second work (book in this case) with the same title, of different date. But there isn't as far as I know. The title "Beschryving van 'sGraven-hage" is in old Dutch spelling, so unlikely to be used again for a work. --oSeveno (User talk) 11:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
| Category:Beschryving van 'sGraven-hage, 1730 | Merge into | Category:Beschryving van 'sGraven-hage |
|---|
@JopkeB and OSeveno: Any objection to the proposal above? Josh (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, I do not have any objection to the proposal of Josh. Thanks both for your contributions. --JopkeB (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- No objections! --oSeveno (User talk) 11:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, both categories can be merged.
- Category:Beschryving van 'sGraven-hage is the one to stay because it is very unlikely that there will be another edition. The other one gets a redirect.
Move to Category:Desert kites, seems pretty obvious to me that the current category name with a dash and all is unsuitable, but I don't want to unilaterally move it as I am not too familiar with Commons categorization and I'm not sure how to move all the files into the new category. eviolite (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- The name Category:Desert kites for the category is not a good name, because it is not understood that it is about an archeological site. User:Geagea Do you have an idea for a category name without the dash but with the fact that it is an archeological site? Thanks Hanay (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hanay, Just as in he.wiki if "Desert kite" is the only meaning of the structure than the "Archaeology site" is not needed. but I suggest Category:Desert kite, Israel as all the photos in the category are from Israel. Category:Desert kite should be created as well. The en.wiki article says "stone wall structures found in Southwest Asia" the he.wiki says: "a facility (מתקן) used for mass hunting of wild herds". Maybe the he.wiki description should be improved. -- Geagea (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Geagea, Desert kites are known today in four major centers in the Middle East: Negev, Arava and Sinai Peninsula kites; East Jordan Kites; Saudi Arabian kites; And the Syrian desert kites. So not only in Israel. Maybe in the future pictures will also be uploaded from sites in other countries. Hanay (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, thats what I said. this category should move to Category:Desert kite, Israel as all the photos are from Israel and another sub category Category:Desert kite shouls be created. 18:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geagea (talk • contribs)
- @Hanay and Geagea: Maybe something like Category:Desert kites in Israel then? Note particularly the plural per Commons:Categories#Category names; a desert kite is not one singular thing (proper noun) but a general class of structures. eviolite (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- OK Hanay (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, thats what I said. this category should move to Category:Desert kite, Israel as all the photos are from Israel and another sub category Category:Desert kite shouls be created. 18:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geagea (talk • contribs)
- Geagea, Desert kites are known today in four major centers in the Middle East: Negev, Arava and Sinai Peninsula kites; East Jordan Kites; Saudi Arabian kites; And the Syrian desert kites. So not only in Israel. Maybe in the future pictures will also be uploaded from sites in other countries. Hanay (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hanay, Just as in he.wiki if "Desert kite" is the only meaning of the structure than the "Archaeology site" is not needed. but I suggest Category:Desert kite, Israel as all the photos in the category are from Israel. Category:Desert kite should be created as well. The en.wiki article says "stone wall structures found in Southwest Asia" the he.wiki says: "a facility (מתקן) used for mass hunting of wild herds". Maybe the he.wiki description should be improved. -- Geagea (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Eviolite and Hanay: Done per discussion. -- Geagea (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
empty, missidentified photos moved to another category Argo Navis (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Argo Navis: Closed (empty; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Plus, it is poorly named. Lots of cities have a Queen Street. People unfamiliar with the category shouldn't have to guess whether it is about the particular Queen Street they know. ` Geo Swan (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Not a useful category Dronebogus (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support speedy deletion. Not useful, and not being used for what the name says. Most people wouldn't expect to see genitalia in a category that says it's for legs. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Dronebogus and Auntof6: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Jezus de goede herder 2001:1C01:221A:2F00:FC2E:31E6:7716:D8DF 08:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand the rationale behind the request? --Enyavar (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Me too, nonsense? -- Kürschner (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Enyavar and Kürschner: Closed (no proposal) Josh (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Grammatically it should be Category:Procession of St. Stanislaus or Category:St. Stanislaus' Procession. PS. The first on already exists, so a merge is needed. Also the child category needs renaming. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
delete. Categories were seemingly emptied by other user's deletion nominations of the content. Enyavar (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Enyavar: Closed (empty; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Only one file, not clear why this would be different in a cis person Dronebogus (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support deletion: agree that this isn't a transgender thing. Move image to parent category. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Nokia 105 AnVuong1222004 (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. For a project that is almost entirely a photo repository, this is a pointless duplication and tautology. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Strong support And all these files should have at least a subcategory of Category:Wilhelmina of the Netherlands by year (and perhaps other categories). --JopkeB (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)- Support I allow myself to want to too (being the creator of this category), because the following character has a great photographic heritage that is scattered everywhere in the section of the category inherent to the character, especially in the years section, personally I find that section very annoying because many photographs are found more in that section than in a section dedicated exclusively to the photographs of the character, and then despite the order of the years, it only contributes to the confusion of the files, because if one would like to look for a certain photogram of a certain period and he no longer remembers where he is, he must make the adventure of going year by year to look for (hoping to find it), the photograph he was looking for for the voice he wanted to enhance--Ŝěrkërßrand (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom, not standard AFAIK to make this distinction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Merged per above. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks A1Cafel, but the merge is far from complete. There has only a redirect been made, the photos are still in Category:Wilhelmina of the Netherlands in photographs and have not been properly categorised (for instance by year, see Category:Wilhelmina of the Netherlands by year). How will this be done, who is going to implement this? --JopkeB (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: User:RussBot will move them after a few days. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @RussBot: Also to the correct year? --JopkeB (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
It's unclear to me what is the division between subcategories of this category and the other subcategories of its parent Category:Transparent background. It seems to me like every single category there could be here (autographs, cinema - which currently includes a few but not all cameras from "objects with transparent background" etc. The division is also not along the lines of icons vs. photos, as these are all over the place, with some categories being divided between icons and photos, and others not, plus the "cut out photography" category in the parent cat. which is so sparsely used it's currently useless. In my opinion this should be merged into Transparent background, as that category is also suitable for being categorised as "Images by subject". YuriNikolai (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This simply duplicates the role of Category:Transparent background. Josh (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Delete Category:People with transparent background is not Category:People with neutral background, Category:People with white background. --Benzoyl (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for my Misunderstanding. I understand. The category-division is meaningless. You're correct. --Benzoyl (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Can the subcategories and files in this category be moved to Category:National parks of the Netherlands (being in line with the rest of the subcategories in Category:National parks by country)? This category can get a redirect or be deleted. JopkeB (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ja, ik denk dat we het beste Category:National parks in the Netherlands kunnen vervangen door Category:National parks of the Netherlands. @Jane023: jij hier nog wat aan toe te voegen? Multichill (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Prima - I think all categories of the form "of the" should have redirects "in the" because there's a mix on English Wikipedia and it spreads to Commons. As far as I can tell there's no difference. Occasionally I will merge and create these myself if I can do it easily with cat-a-lot. Jane023 (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for both your contributions to this discussion. To avoid misunderstandings: for National parks the preposition (voorzetsel) should be "of": this is in line with the rest of the subcategories in Category:National parks by country AND because this category is about nature, then it should be "of", see: Commons:By_location_category_scheme#Preposition_choice. @Jane023: Yes, of coarse you may merge Category:National parks in the Netherlands to Category:National parks of the Netherlands, you can indeed do it with cat-a-lot. --JopkeB (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Done I implemented the proposed changes. --JopkeB (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
The subcategories and files in Category:National parks of the Netherlands have been moved to Category:National parks of the Netherlands; the first category got a redirect. --JopkeB (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Empty category, {{Igen/cat}} does not seem to have any subtemplates. Is this needed? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- AFAIK seems to result from an error. Delete it! -- sarang♥사랑 12:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty and no objections from author. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
What is the difference between "maenads" (in Category:Sculptures of maenads) and "Maenads" (in Category:Sculptures of Maenads)? If there is no difference, what would be the best name? JopkeB (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- No difference I can see. Someone thought the word should be in upper case, but English Wikipedia has it in lower case. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
| Category:Sculptures of Maenads | Merge into | Category:Sculptures of maenads | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| as per Auntof6 (talk · contribs) above | |||
| Josh (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
Auntof6 and Josh: Thanks for your contributions. --JopkeB (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
There is no difference between these two categories, Category:Sculptures of Maenads will be merged into Category:Sculptures of maenads. Done --JopkeB (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Propose to move to Category:Istanbul in the 2010s (and delete the redirect currently at that title). All the parent categories and subcategories of this cat omit the diacritic in their titles. Even the navbox at the top of the page links to the redirect, not to this page itself! --R'n'B (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Rename category to Category:Istanbul in the 2010s without diacritics, as per high-level cat Category:Istanbul (see Universality principle). Josh (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree "Istanbul" without diacritics is the correct name on Commons, category names should generally be in English, see Commons:Naming categories. Reverse the redirect that is now on Category:Istanbul in the 2010s. --JopkeB (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Istanbul in the 2010s. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems unnecessary to have "before" in the year, and why before 2016? A1Cafel (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete categorization by year is sufficient. Users can decide for themselves what range of years is relevant for their purposes. Josh (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
@A1Cafel: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Unhelpful indiscriminate category— even contains non-photographs so fails its “you had one job” test Dronebogus (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann as advertisement. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
See [2], it seems that there are having reasons we need to adopt the new alphanumerical sign of this Russian highway, I suggest to delete the de facto Category:R256 highway (Russia) category redirect, and move Category:M52 highway (Russia) to this title. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Seems sensible to me. Wikipedia has it as "R256 highway (Russia)." Billofocham (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
A very clear consensus. Moved.--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Another ill-advised Lupus in Saxonia creation, category makes no sense Dronebogus (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete These appear to be just the word 'bullshit' in text, so better handled by Category:Bullshit (text). Josh (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Only one image, part of a series of ill-informed categories created by same user Dronebogus (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Now empty Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
"Silvia" is wrong: should be "Slivia" GiorgioGaleotti (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- @GiorgioGaleotti: Yes, you are right --Marchetto da Trieste (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Moved to Category:Santa Maria Maddalena (Slivia, Duino Aurisina) (non-admin closure)--A1Cafel (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a trolleybus and not a bus Gikü (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Spot on! Fully agree. Gikü (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Moved. -- CptViraj (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Requesting that this is renamed to "SVG furniture" to match naming pattern in Category:SVG by subject YuriNikolai (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Moved. -- CptViraj (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Gorilla or gorilla? 191.126.26.159 01:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Clearly Gorilla as we are talking about scientific name. 109.13.146.107 07:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe not clearly, but yes, this is the scientific name, so Keep as is. Josh (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe not clearly, but yes, this is the scientific name, so
Gorillas? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.126.26.159 (talk)
- No, parent cat is Category:Gorilla. Josh (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
capitalized "Gorilla". Latin name, parent category name Estopedist1 (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
The photograph shown in the Infobox is the WRONG person: That is William Edmund Curtis, NOT William Eleroy Curtis: Per NYTimes article linked, Edmund was a Democrat who graduated from Trinity College and Columbia Law School by 1877 and worked as a lawyer in NYC. Per all bio sources, Eleroy was a Republican who graduated from Western Reserve College in 1871 and worked as a journalist in Chicago. I can't figure out how to remove the picture from the Infobox. Please help me. 1Matt20 (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
As soon as I submitted this, the page refreshed and the image was removed. Please disregard, apologies! 1Matt20 (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Resolved. Temporary problem due to wrong Wikidata image Estopedist1 (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Rename to Category:SVG flags of micronations to match parent Category:Flags of micronations. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
renamed Estopedist1 (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Should be “text:bullshit” Dronebogus (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
| Category:Bullshit named items | Merge into | Category:Bullshit (text) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| These items are not named "bullshit" necessarily, but instead display the text "bullshit" | |||
| Josh (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
solution per User:Joshbaumgartner. Side-notice: "Named items" is unique phrase in Commons database--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@Dronebogus and Estopedist1: Closed (merge) Josh (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Has got this category any relevance? Because there isn't any other category with similar descriptions 79.145.148.64 18:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also "be handsome" doesn't be a job occupation, does it? 79.145.148.64 18:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Redundant to PD5 inhibitors, almost none of the images show subject Dronebogus (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Just an exhibitionist category Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
| Category:Maps concerning the First Crusade | Move to/Rename as | Category:Maps of the First Crusade | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:... | Move to/Rename as | Category:... | |
| Category:Maps concerning the Ninth Crusade | Move to/Rename as | Category:Maps of the Ninth Crusade | |
| standard name format for all subcategories concerning a named crusade in Category:Maps of the crusades should be "Maps of Nth crusade". | |||
copied here from my talk page:
- I don't really understand what is the problem with this category Maps concerning the First Crusade. Could you please give me a clue for that matter. Regards. --Io Herodotus (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- The category name is too obscure in my opinion. In my experience, most users would expect "Maps of XY" instead of the admittedly more fancy names "Maps relating to X" or "Maps concerning Y" or "Maps displaying the extent of X with regards to Y within the locality of Z". Simple and easy to find categories are especially helpful for not-native English users as well as new ones on Commons. The parent category is already called "Maps of the crusades", so the child nodes should be similarly called. Again, this is a matter of opinion, hence I started a discussion and didn't just rename everything. Maybe I overlooked something that justifies the current naming scheme and would prevent a change? --Enyavar (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Of is (for category use) synonymous with concerning, and is widely used for exactly this purpose. The word concerning is not problematic in and of itself as it is accurate enough, but as in of and concerning mean the same thing in this context, and of is far and away the normal way to illustrate this relationship in category names, of should be used. (see Universality principle) Josh (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Question @Io Herodotus: Thanks for your question which hopefully has been answered above. Do you have any further questions or can we proceed with this CfD? Josh (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support Fine, it doesn't make much difference to me. --Io Herodotus (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support per John, removing "concerning" make it more concise and avoids any issues it may cause with non-neutral terms in different topics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Done: Moving. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
This is an empty category, but @SuperJew: opposed speedy deletion, hence this discussion. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's part of a set: Category:Photos by SuperJew which also contains Category:QI by SuperJew. --SuperJew (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- @SuperJew: But you have QI, but no FI yet? You could recreate the category if you get a FI, but at the moment this is literally the only empty category in Category:Featured pictures by creator. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- So sorry I'm not up to your standard yet... If it would be easier on your eyes, I can for now leave it not categorised at Category:Featured pictures by creator. --SuperJew (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed. --SuperJew (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I also don't have any FI, hence why I don't have a FI category. ;-) Not much point having an empty category hanging around! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @SuperJew: But you have QI, but no FI yet? You could recreate the category if you get a FI, but at the moment this is literally the only empty category in Category:Featured pictures by creator. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Done: Deleted without prejudice to recreation when SuperJew gets an FP. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Is this category needed? It's in Category:Racism (alongside Category:Ethnic supremacy) and contains only one category, Category:Ethnic supremacists. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete @Themightyquill: I see no problem with upmerging as this seems an unnecessary level at this time. Josh (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Patently useless category without any obvious use whatsoever Dronebogus (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Estopedist1 (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The category is redundant with Category:Großsteingrab DÖN 11, which uses a more common nomenclature. Cephyr~commonswiki (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Redirected by Einsamer Schütze--A1Cafel (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Pointless overly-specific engrish category Dronebogus (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, where would you move the pics? --Trade (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Transgender women do not and cannot menstruate as they lack a uterus. Therefore it is unclear what this category is for— a transgender man’s period articles, period hygiene products used as sex toys or something else? Nominating for deletion as confusing and therefore useless— you can’t educate someone if they don’t understand what it is. Dronebogus (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Some of the file titles refer to transgender men, so might that be applicable? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- The "User:Lupus in Saxonia" wrote on his user page, that he will not work anymore at commons. IMHO he create many categories, without useful names, so that other user can not understand, what is this category for( like Category:Bullshit Errors, Category:Psy Art,...). I think this categories can be deleted and all images move to better categories. --sk (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I agree LiS had some serious w:WP:CIR issues despite acting in extremely good faith. Dronebogus (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- The "User:Lupus in Saxonia" wrote on his user page, that he will not work anymore at commons. IMHO he create many categories, without useful names, so that other user can not understand, what is this category for( like Category:Bullshit Errors, Category:Psy Art,...). I think this categories can be deleted and all images move to better categories. --sk (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Far from being educational, these images are misleading and not representative of the trans experience in any way. They are seemingly uploaded as self-pornography. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Seems unnecessary to have "before" in the year, and why before 2016? A1Cafel (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- As to the first part, it's because it might actually reflect a naming convention on the site? See Category:Gerald Ford before 1974 for one example that came to mind right away. Yet another siloed discussion on a solitary piece of content isn't going to fix that problem, if it really is a problem. As to the second part, why before 2016? Because her husband's election as president may make that a demarcation line between the existence of not so much free content and a whole lot of free content? I'm not a big fan of breaking everything down by exact year to the extent of having an endless array of one-entry categories, yet that practice is rampant. It reveals the POV of the editors responsible.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete categorization by year is sufficient. Users can decide for themselves what range of years is relevant for their purposes. Josh (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Josh. --Bohème21 (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- at first glance Delete, but correct would be procedural oppose, because we have many several analogues (some examples [3]). If a celebrity has well-populated "by year" categories, but also some files from childhood and adolescent years, then using "before Foo year" may be useful--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Done: empty category. --Kritzolina (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I think we need a rename here. I spent too much time to find the category because I was searching for "Maps of (the) celtic peoples" or "Maps of the Celts", similar to what we find in "Category:Maps of the Turkic peoples" (also "of the Laz people" or "of the Azerbaijani people") or "Category:Maps of the Alans/Huns/Moldovans/East Slavs/Franks/Khazars/Maori" etc:
The mostly used schema is blunt and easy: <Maps of>+[topic], not <Maps relating to>+[topic].
The topic here are "celtic peoples" or "Celts". I'd argue for "Maps of the Celts". Enyavar (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
| Category:Maps relating to Celts | Move to/Rename as | Category:Maps of the Celts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:Maps relating to Italic peoples | Move to/Rename as | Category:Maps of the Italic peoples | |
| Category:Maps relating to Lombards | Move to/Rename as | Category:Maps of the Lombards | |
| standard name format for all contents in Category:Maps of ancient peoples should be "Maps of people name". | |||
| Josh (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
@Enyavar: Any objection to the proposal above? Josh (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Looks great, thanks. --Enyavar (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- First category in the list: Done. --Enyavar (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- All three categories in the list above: Done. --Enyavar (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Renamed by Enyavar. -- CptViraj (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Besides the images from category creator how likely is it we’re going to find, let alone need to categorize as such, images of transgender people with a removed penile frenulum? Dronebogus (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete All just photos of the same exhibitionist Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per above. -- CptViraj (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
This category is like a personal webpage. Look at links to Youtube channel etc. HeminKurdistan (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There are several images of this person, so a category for them is appropriate. As for the 'references' portion with the external links, I think that can be removed from the category header. Josh (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- The person seems to be User:Peymanmajidimoeiniran. Is it OK to use Commons as a host for personal pictures? HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @HeminKurdistan: Perhaps not, but if the files are out of scope, their deletion should be requested (at COM:DEL). Once the inappropriate files are deleted, if the category is empty it will be speedy deleted at that time. So long as files remain, the category should remain as the place to hold them, even if their deletion has been requested. Josh (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- I did not know that. Thank you. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- The person seems to be User:Peymanmajidimoeiniran. Is it OK to use Commons as a host for personal pictures? HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted 18 April 2023 by P199. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
What is the point/definition of this category? Dronebogus (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, @Dronebogus. Doesn't resemble with category:Psychedelic art Estopedist1 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Not a useful category, all the images are from one photographer (the category creator) and don’t meaningfully represent “erotic art photography” as they’re mostly un-artistic penis photos Dronebogus (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Done: Deleted already as empty. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I can't see the point of having "Sun from Earth" over just "Sun". I'm not aiming to remove it, but it seems a little bit weird A1Cafel (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
| Category:Sun from Earth | Move to/Rename as | Category:Sun viewed from Earth | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| @A1Cafel: Perhaps this would be more clear as to this category being expressly for images of the sun captured from Earth, as opposed to from other vantage points in the universe. | |||
| Josh (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
I was a bit confused by this category name myself. A better option would be to rename this category as "category:photographs of the Sun from Earth" and then place it as a subcategory of "category:photographs of the Sun". This differentiates photographs of the Sun from diagrams or illustrations showing the Sun from Earth (such as for the Sun-Earth distance or astronomical unit). Nicole Sharp (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
If we keep the "Sun from Earth" category as it is, the alternative is to subdivide it by medium and topic. For example "images of the Sun from Earth" and "videos of the Sun from Earth", which can then be further subdivided into "images of the Sun from the USA" and "videos of the Sun from the USA" and so on by location, medium, equipment, etc. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Nicole Sharp: The only problem with renaming it Category:Photographs of the Sun viewed from Earth is that a photograph is not the only way to view the Sun from Earth, so you would still need a parent Category:Sun viewed from Earth to hold other media such as Category:Paintings of the Sun viewed from Earth. If there are currently only photographs that would go in Category:Sun viewed from Earth, then there is no need for the subcategory Category:Photographs of the Sun viewed from Earth. Thus I recommend the rename above, and then if there are any files that are not photographs, we create Category:Photographs of the Sun viewed from Earth, Category:Videos of the Sun viewed from Earth, etc. as appropriate for the media we have. Josh (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The proposal is implemented for most "X from Y" categories. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Unclear meaning. Why emphasize "including"? we already have enough Category:Cosplay of Hatsune Miku.--Kai3952 (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Kai3952: Hi. "Including" means, not the main subject of photograph (subject-clear), but the included on the group photographs or the background (subject-not-clear), etc. In my opinion, this type of sub-category (including category) is needed for easy to find the photos we want, when the main-category was crowded with mixture of subject-clear photos and subject-non-clear photos. If you think it is not needed, please ignore "including" category. --Clusternote (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- If we keep, should be more clear as Category:Cosplay of Hatsune Miku as background or some such. However, not clear that we should be maintaining this kind of categorization. Why even bother categorizing by something in an image that is not clear as a subject in the image. I get that there is no hard line between what is clear and not clear, or primary and secondary. Perhaps what would work better is sub-catting those images in which the subject is isolated (clearly the complete and only subject of the image). Open to thoughts... Josh (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Clusternote: Do you mean to want to create a category similar to "Donald Trump with people"?--Kai3952 (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@Kai3952: : Sorry, I'm not interested on this type of discussion. Before I created these categories, vocaloid cosplay category was crowded and need to sub-categorize, thus I created these. Since then seven years are passed, and new colleagers may have new ideas. I encourage you to try the re-sturcturing of the categories with new ideas. I'm not try to stop these. --Clusternote (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's self-contradictory to say that you're not interested on this type of discussion while at the same time saying you need to create sub-category for vocaloid cosplay category. If you're really not interested on this, why would you be spending your time doing things you're not interested in?--Kai3952 (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- You seems confused. The seven years ago and this year are not the same time.
- The reason explained above is as of seven years ago.
- And as of this year, I said that, if you have any new ideas, please discuss these with others (than me), and carry out these new ideas yourself.
- From now on, please discuss this issue with others (than me). --Clusternote (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- You seems confused. The seven years ago and this year are not the same time.
Question @Kai3952: Do you have a specific proposal for what to do with this category? Clusternote (talk · contribs) has pretty clearly indicated that they are disinterested in the result of this CfD, so if you have an idea what to do, let's get this one moving forward. Josh (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Just move the images to their respective 'Cosplay of X' category. If we want additional categorizing, we can discuss it another time. He's had almost a week to respond. --Trade (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: --Trade (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete agreed, see dpreview for details. --El Grafo (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | Most of the categories were deleted because they were already empty. The few that were left I up-merged and deleted per Trade since I assume that's what happened with the others. | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC) | |||