Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2023/08
What is this category about? What would be a good definition? Why should this category exist on Commons? The only file is from a person who wrote about „Exportmarketing“ and „Internationales Business Development“, what have those subjects to do with Economic engineering? The only subcategory has perfectly good other parent categories. JopkeB (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Some people should NeverbeDoing categorization in Commons. 186.172.228.88 12:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I assume whomever created the category meant "engineering economics", which at least IMO isn't worth having a specific category for. Although there are a few files that refer to it. Including this book. But I think they would be better off in a more general category for economics anyway. So I say delete this and make sure "engineering economics" never becomes a category. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus |  Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Move the subcategory + file to correct parent categories. Adjust Wikidata item. Ask for deletion of this category. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
What is this category about? What would be a good definition? Why should it be on Commons? It looks like it is only a Commons category because there is a Wikidata item and several Wikipedia categories for and that is not a good reason. There is only one subcategory and that has perfect other parent categories. JopkeB (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete This category is totally pointless and it should be deleted as such. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Move subcategory to correct parent category (if necessary). Ask for deletion. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
According to EN-WP "Exogenous growth model" and "Solow–Swan model" are the same. So can on Commons Category:Solow model (which has a link in the Wikidata item of the English WP article) and Category:Exogenous growth model be merged? Otherwise: can clear definitions be added to both categories pointing out the diferences and can de link in the Wikidata item be replaced by Category:Exogenous growth model instead of Category:Solow model? JopkeB (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, why not? 186.174.165.203 15:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Conclusion: I could not determine whether all the files in this category should indeed be in Category:Solow model, so I kept both categories and the category structure.
And I reckon an anonymous reaction not as a valid one. JopkeB (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus |  Proposal withdrawn | |||
| Actions | Add a description to Category:Exogenous growth model. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
Do we need this category on Commons? It has only one subcategory (which could be moved to Category:Labour market) and one file (which should not be in this category, but in Category:Factoring). I do not see categories for markets for the other economic factors that are mentioned in the description, and I have doubts that there will be in the near future.That there is a Wikidata item and several Wikipedia articles about this subject is not a good enough reason. JopkeB (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete And up-merge whatever is in the category. It's not worth having a category this ambiguous just because there's a Wikidata/Wikipedia article for the concept. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | (1) Move the subcategory and files to correct parents or (in case of overcategorization) just remove them from this category. (2) Adjust the Wikidata item. (3) Make a redirect to Category:Factors of production. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
Appears to be nonnotable micronation. (not the same as Westarctica) Clarinetguy097 (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Done: exactly. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Useless category, too narrow of an inclusion criteria. Gikü (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Same with Category:Acțiuni solemne, consacrate Zilei comemorării celor căzuți în războiul din Afganistan. Gikü (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Photo Archives commented on their talk page:
I don't recall these and I was relabeling in English as instructed by cryptic-waveform I dont see the pics so i can't do anything now? Photo Archives (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps I had already translated a name to English and forgot to speedydelete the empty Cat or didn't do it with Rederect so speedy delete both of them or shall i do it?
- Yes, delete it please.
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
w:en:MacArthur Highway (of Luzon island) does not have a segment that is signed as Route 55 contrary to what some images here claim. MacArthur Highway is only part of two national routes, Route 1 and Route 2. These photos showing the "w:en:San Fabian, Pangasinan segment" are probably depicting Pangasinan–La Union Road (see w:en:Philippine highway network), but there is another category named "Category:Rosario-San Fabian Diversion Road". Unsure if both Rosario-San Fabian Diversion Road and Pangasinan–La Union Road are just the same road. The website used by now-blocked Judgefloro (talk · contribs) in backing up his creation of category "Rosario-San Fabian Diversion Road", this news article, does not provide much help. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Just be bold and make corrections as necessary. Once this category is empty, it can be deleted. Thanks for trying to clean up a bit the category mess that this user left behind. Also on my to-do list, but seems overwhelming... --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- @P199 I can't act on this because I want to be sure if both "Rosario–San Fabian Diversion Road" and "Pangasinan–La Union Road" are just the same road or not, so I can proceed with bold moves. I've already asked a few of my FB friends about this but they don't know about this road. I haven't visited San Fabian, Pangasinan yet (as my northernmost visited place is somewhere in Tarlac province), and using Google Street View does not seem to be of help to me. I need further assistance regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- @P199 I've now transferred the photos to Category:Pangasinan–La Union Road which I just created, following both the Google Maps label and the road atlas of DPWH for the 2nd DEO of Pangasinan. Curiously, DPWH labels the remaining part as "Rabon–Damortis Road", but I think this was because they named the Pangasinan part as "Pangasinan–La Union Inter-provincial Road. But in any case, the "MacArthur Highway - San Fabian segment" subcat can now be deleted. Any concern about "Rosario–San Fabian Diversion Road" being the same as (or different to) Pangasinan–La Union Road may be dealt with in a future time or in a future CfD forum. Perhaps this CfD can now be closed to lessen the CfD backlog. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Done: deleted as empty. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete this category as w:en:MacArthur Highway has no segment going to the city of Dagupan. This cannot be made as a plausible redirect to Category:Urdaneta–Dagupan Road. Another category mess created by now-blocked Judgefloro (talk · contribs). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Done: deleted as empty. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
This must be Delete. MacArthur Highway does not have segments going to Mangaldan and Santa Barbara towns of Pangasinan province. Cannot be made as a reasonable redirect to Category:Santa Barbara–Mangaldan Road because of this outrageous category name by now-blocked Judgefloro (talk · contribs). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Done: deleted as empty. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete as w:en:MacArthur Highway has no segment in the town of Santa Barbara, Pangasinan. Most of the images here show Category:Santa Barbara Old Road (in accordance with 2022 DPWH Road Atlas); the other images depict a segment of Category:Urdaneta–Dagupan Road. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Done: deleted as empty. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
What is this category about? What would be a good description/definition? Why should it be on Commons? The subcategory and three files have good other parent categories, why should they be here? I do not see a connection. JopkeB (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete this nonsense. 186.173.52.34 12:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | (1) Move the subcategories and files to correct parents or (in case of overcategorization) just remove them from this category. (2) Ask for deletion of this category. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
What is the difference between Category:Currency and Category:Currencies? They both have the same Wikidata item (and so links to the same Wikipedias). Can both categories be merged? Since category names on Commons should be in plural I suggest to keep Category:Currencies and give the other a redirect. JopkeB (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Move subcategories and files of Category:Currency to Category:Currencies and give the first one a redirect. Adjust the Wikitdata item if necessary. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
Shouldn't the category name be Category:Cabinet formations in the Netherlands? All categories about the Netherlands should have "the Netherlands" in the category name, "Dutch" is only used for the language. The subcategories should also be renamed. JopkeB (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- I used the name that is used on the English Wikipedia article, but I agree with the suggestion. Dajasj (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Although, this should also apply to Category:Dutch general elections right? Dajasj (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. JopkeB (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Although, this should also apply to Category:Dutch general elections right? Dajasj (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | 1) Rename category + subcategories that has not ":Cabinet formation in the Netherlands" in the name 2) Adjust Wikidata items involved. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | Category:Dutch general elections and subcategories should also be renamed, but that is out the scope of this category, that should be a seperate Discussion | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
Why do we need this category on Commons? We can perfectly do without it. Category:Monetary economics was/is and should be a subcategory of Category:Macroeconomics (as in WP-EN) and the other subcategories do not need this category either. JopkeB (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per JopkeB. Totally pointless. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | (1) Make Category:Monetary economics a subcategory of Category:Macroeconomics. (2) Move the other subcategories to correct parents or (in case of overcategorization) just remove them from this category. (3) Make a redirect to Category:Macroeconomics. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
Adivasi and Scheduled Tribes of India should be merged into a single category, since Adivasis and Scheduled Tribes are synonymous. The description of the Adivasi category itself says that Adivasis are "officially recognized by the Indian government as "Scheduled Tribes" in the Fifth Schedule of the en:Constitution of India". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- According to the English Wikipedia article on Adivasi, the term "refers to heterogeneous tribal groups across the Indian subcontinent." Therefore, Scheduled Tribes of India should be a subcategory of Adivasi instead of the opposite. I'm withdrawing the merger proposal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
CFD withdrawn. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguate. This is ambiguous with a great variety of topics, including a commune in Benin and many people named Nikki. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Support Even Wikipedia has this title as a DAB and the article was merged in 2018 so I can't see how this is controversial. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)- Support, but what would be a good title? Perhaps "Nikki (Japan)" or "Nikki (Japanese diary)"? Binabik (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- The title on Wikipedia was Category:Nikki Bungaku. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Works for me. Binabik (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- The title on Wikipedia was Category:Nikki Bungaku. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
moved to Category:Nikki bungaku and then turned into dab page.--RZuo (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Can this category be deleted? It is empty and I cannot find files or subcategories that fit in. JopkeB (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Adjust the Wikidata item Q3488550 + ask for a speedy deletion Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
Empty and not used 2A02:A31A:C33F:2E80:402:9F00:7037:1C61 10:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Cette catégorie regroupait des fichiers qui ont probablement été supprimés depuis. Voir : https://ahmetogut.com/Information-Power-to-The-People Jeangagnon (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
There are no pages or files in this category. 2A02:A31A:C33F:2E80:402:9F00:7037:1C61 11:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Tagged as empty. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
name in Dutch, unuseful cat. Vysotsky (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is a useful category, but then in English: Category:Portrait photographs of André van Duin. Files that are about his portraits can be moved to this category. It is useful because there are several subcategories and when you are looking for one of his portraits, you don't have to scroll them, just look at that one category. JopkeB (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Moved accordingly. Added two cats. Vysotsky (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I moved and copied some more portrait photographs to the new category. Ik think this discussion can be closed now. JopkeB (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Funny. You said: "It is useful because there are several subcategories and when you are looking for one of his portraits, you don't have to scroll them, just look at that one category." And then you remove Category:André van Duin from this file, so we only have all these subcategories. I like a category containing all files (up to 200), so one does have an overview, for instance when looking for a colour picture, or for a picture with a tie, or for one with a hat. I hate all these subdivisions, which means you have to dive into several subcategories and waste your time. It would be nice if e.g. this file could be in 3 categories: 1) André van Duin, 2) Portrait photographs of André van Duin, and 3) André van Duin in the 1980s. That is not overcategorizing, but a handy method to keep us both satisfied. Vysotsky (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- According to the Commons:Categories#Modularity principle, pages "should be put in the most specific category/categories that fit(s) the page (not directly to its parent categories)". So not in both, that really is over-categorization according to the Commons policy, even if there are less than 200 files in the main category. The file you mention, might be in two categories: 2) and 3) (the file has no date, but if you say it was made in the 80s, it sure can be copied to Category:André van Duin in the 1980s as well), but not in 1).
- If you want an overview of a selection (or even of all files), you can make a gallery page, as comprehensive as you want, even with subheadings for colour pictures and photos showing the artist with a tie or hat. An alternative is to make subcategories for those subjects.
- If you do not agree with this policy, you can start a discussion. Until this policy will be changed, I'll stick to it. JopkeB (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- You are perfectly right, but I like practical solutions over theoretical frameworks. Vysotsky (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Funny. You said: "It is useful because there are several subcategories and when you are looking for one of his portraits, you don't have to scroll them, just look at that one category." And then you remove Category:André van Duin from this file, so we only have all these subcategories. I like a category containing all files (up to 200), so one does have an overview, for instance when looking for a colour picture, or for a picture with a tie, or for one with a hat. I hate all these subdivisions, which means you have to dive into several subcategories and waste your time. It would be nice if e.g. this file could be in 3 categories: 1) André van Duin, 2) Portrait photographs of André van Duin, and 3) André van Duin in the 1980s. That is not overcategorizing, but a handy method to keep us both satisfied. Vysotsky (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I moved and copied some more portrait photographs to the new category. Ik think this discussion can be closed now. JopkeB (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Moved accordingly. Added two cats. Vysotsky (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Make a new category, make a redirect for this one and move the files Done by Vysotsky | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
Shouldn't we make this Category:University of Washington Seattle campus? I presume we don't want to include UW Bothell and UW Tacoma campuses here. Also, related: Category:University of Washington buildings should not be a subcat. If you want to split out a subcat of Category:University of Washington buildings for buildings on the Seattle campus and put it here, fine, but buildings in Bothell, Tacoma, or even South Lake Union presumably do not belong in this category. Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- We could definitely rename it to Category:University of Washington Seattle campus or Category:University of Washington main campus. Category:University of Washington buildings could also be subcategorized into Category:University of Washington Seattle buildings, Category:University of Washington buildings in Seattle or Category:University of Washington buildings on main campus. Or just eliminating the whole category and put individual buildings in the corresponding campus category. I have no current knowledge on which buildings are on the main campus. Would you be willing to help categorizing them? Xeror (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. While Seattle is the original campus (give or take the old one on Denny's Knoll, which they left in the 1890s), theory is that UW Tacoma and UW Bothell are "equal" to it, so I wouldn't use "main". - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to take the liberty of closing this early: the category is recent, and its creator seems to have no objection to the direction I proposed taking it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The descriptions of the files in this category are out of scope because misleading and selfpromotional. No information about AI is given in the descriptions. Is the 'artist' AI-generated too? The files where in a very misplaced way scattered into every possible steampunk category but not in the category Portraits of Vincent Van Gogh, nor in the category AI-generated images. The relation to steampunk stays unclear, except as a keyword fed to the machine. This discussion is about if all of these files need to be kept on commons with this kind of ultra promotional IA-generated blabla bs-descriptions. Even their structured data entries 'cowpunk', 'metaverse' and 'steampunk novel' look very displaced here. Peli (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment Are you planning on nominating the images for deletion? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- I dont mind keeping them in the right place with the right descriptions & tags if it can be confirmed by an expert on the topic that this is an example of AI-generated stuff anno 2023. But I see that a deletion nomination would possibly get more reviews and clearer discussion results. I think the tendency would be something like: "we dont't need that many examples of AI-generated imagery" and "Commons is not a personal image repository". Peli (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete because we have a lot of AI art of varying degrees of quality and scope; this is near the bottom of both and also grossly miscategorized. Easier to delete than to try and fix. Dronebogus (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment "This discussion is about if all of these files need to be kept on commons with this kind of ultra promotional IA-generated blabla bs-descriptions" - then you did it the wrong way, as you nominated only the category and not the images in the category. If you wish to file a deletion request for the images, you can easily do so with VisualFileChange, which allows you to nominate images in a category for deletion, will add the proper DR templates to the files and notify the uploader(s). Gestumblindi (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete category (and its content as well) per COM:NOTHOST. Jklamo (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per No_original_research #Original_images. All are nominated on the deletion discussion page now. Peli (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Info The related deletion request mentioned by Peli for the files in the category is Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated portraits of Vincent van Gogh. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Done: As all files in the category were deleted, it is empty now - deleted. --Gestumblindi (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
elle doit être supprimée (erreur au moment de la création) Faqscl (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. What is the correct category name? Then you (or I) can make a proper Speedy deletion request.
- Je suis d'accord. Quel est le nom de catégorie correct? Ensuite, vous (ou moi) pouvons faire une bonne Speedy deletion request. JopkeB (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Il faut juste la supprimer car j'ai créé la catégorie correcte sans le "St" à la fin qui n'a aucune signification et qui résulte d'une faute de frappe (lors de l'écriture de "Stèle"J . Je vais donc essayer de la supprimer avec speedy deletion Faqscl (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Ask for a deletion request Done by Faqscl | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | Correct category is Category:Stele with Sabaean inscription adressed to the moon-god Almaqah - Louvre - DAO 18 | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
Move It to "brands", everything is about "names" here you ... 186.173.52.34 12:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's always one of two who invent these barbarisms. 186.173.52.34 12:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- This entity is admitting they know backstage stuff about Commons, namely who usually creates what kind of cats. This is not only creepy a.f. (WMF’s safety something-or-other might want to exhert some of their makework here, perhaps?), but this is also abuse of multiple accounts, maybe even a disgruntled admin in disguise. For the sake of minimal harmony in this project, specifically put this handle through a CU evaluation, and generally bar unlogged users from disrupting Commons namespace pages. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Would Category:Drugs by brand be a better name? That would be in line with the subcategories of Category:Categories by brand. (And would you please login, so that we know with who we are dealing with?) JopkeB (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- JopkeB is probably right. And in any case, "brands" rather than "brand names". - Jmabel ! talk 17:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Rename category to Category:Drugs by brand, adjust Wikidata item. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
Löschen. Da doppelt und andere voll und richtig beschrieben. Bessere: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lidl_supermarkets_in_Germany Riquix (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- ERLEDIGT, wird gelöscht. -- Kürschner (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Category already has been deleted. --JopkeB (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This was an obvious mistake by me Dajasj (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- For this kind of mistakes you can use Template:Speedydelete. JopkeB (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! :) I will do that then Dajasj (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Dajasj added Template:Speedydelete, category has been deleted Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
Should the name not be: Category:Textile retail? Most of the images in here are about shops, markets and other places where textile is sold, but buyers/shoppers are rare on the images. The Wikidata item definition is: "activity in which a customer browses goods or services with the potential intent to purchase", while here hardly such activities are shown. JopkeB (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Rename category to Category:Textile retail | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
Deletion by creator, forgot brackets Windharp (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- For this kind of mistakes you can use Template:Speedydelete. JopkeB (talk) 05:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Redirect Done by Windharp | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
This category is currently empty, and I do not see any 1955 calendar files that could possibly be placed into this category. Delete for now, and recreate only when a 1955 calendar file has been uploaded. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's fine. I don't remember exactly, but I think I may have created this category unintentially. ~~ Kreuz und quer (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
This shipyard has gone through several names over the years. At the moment we have 2 categories for the same shipyard: Category:Litton-Ingalls Shipbuilding and Category:Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Pascagoula. The name that seems to be staying constant is however Category:Ingalls Shipbuilding. It's also the name that is currently used on the official website: https://hii.com/what-we-do/divisions/ingalls-shipbuilding/. I suggest moving the category to Category:Ingalls Shipbuilding, keeping all previous names as redirects. The categories "Ships built at ..." will also be merged under the new name. Thoughts? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think that this is a good idea and it would be the same as as Newport News Shipbuilding, the other shipbuilding branch of HII. Also, the Northrop Grumman name was only active from 2001 to 2008. All preceding and subequent years it was and is "Ingalls". Cobatfor (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Move Category:Litton-Ingalls Shipbuilding to Category:Ingalls Shipbuilding and leave as redirect.
- Move Category:Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Pascagoula to Category:Ingalls Shipbuilding and leave as redirect.
- Move Category:Ships built at Litton-Ingalls Shipbuilding to Category:Ships built at Ingalls Shipbuilding and leave as redirect.
- Move Category:Ships built at Ingalls Shipbuilding, Pascagoula to Category:Ships built at Ingalls Shipbuilding and leave as redirect.
Should be deleted per G4: recreation of Category:Al-Agha Group (the discussion). --Karim talk to me :)..! 10:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: and replaced content with {{category redirect|AlAgha Group}}. (non-admin closure) Jonteemil (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Odd name, should be Category:Aerial views of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. User:Chris Light, any objection to the renaming? Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Also, at least some of these are not aerial views. File:Pike Market from the RIC - panoramio.jpg and File:CenturyLink Field from Space Needle.jpg are both from buildings, others might also be, you should check. - Jmabel ! talk 20:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- New name could be easier. I'll check for aerial versus buildings. I think there are a lot of images down onto the Viaduct. A category for these might be useful. I'll mull it over and maybe make a suggestion. Chris Light (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- More generic would be Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct from above. But then on all that actually are aerial photographs, you'd want to restore the Category:Aerial photographs of Seattle that I removed from these as redundant. - Jmabel ! talk 07:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- New name could be easier. I'll check for aerial versus buildings. I think there are a lot of images down onto the Viaduct. A category for these might be useful. I'll mull it over and maybe make a suggestion. Chris Light (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
@Chris Light: which way do you want to go? Category:Aerial views of the Alaskan Way Viaduct or Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct from above? I don't really care which. - Jmabel ! talk 20:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- The Category:Aerial views of the Alaskan Way Viaduct is in line with other categories with Aerial views. That wording keeps it in line for consolidation of aerial views upward to Category:Aerial photographs. I'd go for that. A high-level category Category:Views from above includes the Category:Aerial photographs. Checking Category:Views of New York (state) from above has a category for Niagara Falls, which has many sub-categories with views from overlooks and viewing towers. Possibly a category using the 'views from above' language may be appropriate for the Alaskan Way Viaduct at a later date. I know that is reverse of what I started in moving images to the existing category. Chris Light (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Category:Aerial views of the Alaskan Way Viaduct it is. - Jmabel ! talk 02:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Invented. Is there such a thing like dua verse? 186.174.89.102 16:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- This is an empty category. You can use the Template:Speedydelete. JopkeB (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
This category (Mystery of cemetery crosses) is based only by some phantasmagoric theory, published anonymously on some dubious website. According to it, the decorations on the crosses serve as a photon power station. I don't think the Commons categorization should reflect such marginal thought constructions. ŠJů (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- What is your proposal? JopkeB (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: All included files are copied to the parent category Category:Grave crosses in Pohled. The creator of the category emptied it and proposed for deletion, and replaced it with another category, now renamed to Category:Details of ornaments on grave crosses at Pohled cemetery. The CfD can by closed by speedy deletion. --ŠJů (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Already Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
The category is named "Two-wheel agricultural trailer" in Czech, but according to its description and categorization, its was not meant generally for all two-wheel agricultural trailers, but for some certain specific trailers in a specific location. The creator of the category clearly did not understand some of the principles of the categorization structure. There are several ways to solve this category: * cancel it and distribute the content into existing categories * rename it to a category for specific vehicles in a specific location * rename it to a general category for a certain type of trailers ŠJů (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Emptied by the creator. Proposed for speedy deletion. --ŠJů (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Category has been deleted. --JopkeB (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
What is the difference between Category:Types of organization and Category:Organizations by type? Can these two be merged (Category:Types of organization into the other)? JopkeB (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Of course. Just ask an admin to do so. 186.174.165.203 14:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- OK, thanks (whoever you are). I'll wait another three weeks to see whether there are other opinions and if not , I'll make the changes. (I do not need to ask an admin, I've done a lot of those mergers lately. I just need to know whether there are objections.) JopkeB (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not at all. My IP is not less meaningful than any username, unless one uses their own name as username and is a known personality. 186.174.165.203 15:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- OK, thanks (whoever you are). I'll wait another three weeks to see whether there are other opinions and if not , I'll make the changes. (I do not need to ask an admin, I've done a lot of those mergers lately. I just need to know whether there are objections.) JopkeB (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:Types of organization into Category:Organizations by type. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
Usefulness? Kelly The Angel (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Apparently this category is not useful: this category is empty. You can ask for deletion with a Speedy deletion request. JopkeB (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Номинирую данную категорию для обсуждения: на Викискладе уже есть категория AKSM-333, для троллейбусов модели 333 производства Белкоммунмаш. Предлагаю не удалять категорию BKM-333, а создать перенаправление на категорию AKSM-333. I nominate this category for discussion: there is already the AKSM-333 category on Wikimedia Commons, for trolleybuses model 333, designed and built by Belkommunmash. I suggest creating a redirect. ATI1999 (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Empty category CzarJobKhaya (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
A redundant category with Category:Reliefs of the Temple of Athena Nike. I took the liberty of moving all files here over there and this can now be deleted. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
What is the difference between Category:Free content and Category:Open content? Isn't all Open content free to use? And what is the relationship with Category:The Commons? There are now some common subcategories. JopkeB (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's the same; I like the name Open content much more because it, like ope source, is well better understood and the more popular term. Free content could also just mean it's free as in it doesn't cost you money. It's the same thing for "free software" – most young people know what open source roughly refers to but nearly nobody has even heard of Free software, and that's good. There's no need to differentiate between "open content" and "free content" or "free and open content". I think the intention may have been to differentiate between content that is only openly available (basically everything on the Web not behind a paywall), content that you can freely use but not with a free license like CreativeCommons (isn't that basically the first? and it doesn't seem like the subcats fit that do they?), and free content with CC-type licenses like media on WMC. The infoboxes on both articles link to the same Wikipedia article. I'd suggest merging to Category:Open content.
- The relationship with The Commons is that open content is a type of common resources, a category of publicly available resources in the global commons. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'd also agree to merge to Category:Open content. - Jmabel ! talk 16:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Prototyperspective and User:Jmabel. So:
- In the EN-WP these two concepts have been merged also. There's no need to differentiate between "open content" and "free content". These two categories can be merged.
- The definition/description can be: Online content which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose.
- I agree with Prototyperspective that "Free" (can also mean only free of charge) here is less clear than "Open" (which covers the whole concept). So I also plea that Category:Open content will stay and Category:Free content will get a redirect.
- Category:Open content can be a subcategory of Category:The Commons.
- I'll wait another two weeks to see whether there are other opinions and then I'll make the canges. JopkeB (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Prototyperspective and User:Jmabel. So:
I see no objections (and one anonymous insult, which I'll let function as a good reminder that it is time to close this). JopkeB, please feel free to make the changes as discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 13 sep 2023 03:14 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | (1) Integrate Category:Free content into Category:Open content. (2) Add the description to Category:Open content. (3) Make Category:Open content a subcategory of Category:The Commons. (4) Adjust the Wikidata items involved. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
Kapelle schreibt sich nicht mit Doppel-P 131.152.231.248 17:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Done: Cat renamed. --Achim55 (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
No sensible content. That's in English "Asaad Babiker (b. 2003) is a professional soccer player, tells about his grandfather, a skilled Finnish soccer player." Luurankosoturi (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
None of these subcategories are memes Trade (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed. I've removed them all, category is now empty. El Grafo (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Super polsat 164.127.200.25 09:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Not done: Nothing to do. --Achim55 (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Why is this a separate category from Category:Sheldon Jackson College (and not even a subcategory?). Also, I'm pretty sure it was never known as "Sheldon School" ("Sheldon" was Sheldon Jackson's first name). Plus why a subcat of Category:Octagonal buildings in the United States (presumably a refernce to Category:Sheldon Jackson Museum, none of whose images are in this category, so why is it used)? I say merge to Category:Sheldon Jackson College. Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Sorry, I was just going by the NRHP number (72000193). Change it to what you think is correct. Krok6kola (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
OK, that's easy. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Should this empty category be deleted? Ooligan (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Closing - category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Should this empty category be deleted? Ooligan (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Empty יודוקוליס (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Retained as a useful redirect. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
wrong name Kushared (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
This category should be removed as it was created by a vandal with the portrait of an unknown man Ecummenic (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
This category should be removed as it was created by the vandal "O Correto"with the portrait of an unknown boy Ecummenic (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
This category should be removed as it was created by the vandal "O Correto" with portraits of unknown men Ecummenic (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Empty category Ecummenic (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- What do you expect to discuss? Which admin to ask to delete it? 191.125.15.22 23:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Deleted per nom. Ecummenic, please tag empty categories with {{speedy|empty category}} going forward. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Rename Category, the game was 2-1 for Inter Miami, not 0-0. CubanoBoi (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- @CubanoBoi I renamed it to Category:Inter Miami CF vs Nashville SC, U.S. Open Cup (23 May 2023). There was also a typo there I had to fix. For uncontroversial renames like this, you can just use {{Move}} in the future. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Shouldn't you close and archive this chapter? 191.125.15.22 23:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Empty category. This category should be removed as it was created by the vandal "O Correto" with a portrait of an unknown man by Ingres Ecummenic (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Deleted per nom. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This was an inaccurately named category for these photos. I moved the category to a new, appropriately titled category, and as the creator, am now requesting the redirect be removed to avoid confusion and adding any additional files to this category. Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Deleted per nom. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
How is Category:Competitiveness different from Category:Competition (economics)? Why are these two subcategories (Labour productivity + Transparency international) here, what is their connection with Competitiveness? In EN-WP there is a redirect to w:en:Competition (economics), so that indicates that both categories can be merged. JopkeB (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:Competitiveness into Category:Competition (economics) and make a redirect. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Why should this category be on Commons? It has only three subcategories which can perfectly exitst without this multi-subject category. JopkeB (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | (1) Move the subcategories to other(s) or just remove them from this category. (2) Make a deletion request for this category. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
What is the difference between Category:Information economy and Category:Knowledge-based sector? Can the subcategories of the first one be moved to the second one and can Category:Information economy get a redirect? JopkeB (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:Information economy into Category:Knowledge-based sector, give a redirect to the first one. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | There is no difference between these two categories in Commons. | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
What is this category about? What would be a good description for this category? Is it about the types of concrete? Should for instance Category:Artificial stone, Category:Autoclaved aerated concrete, Category:Ferrocement, Fiber-reinforced concrete, Fibre-reinforced cementitious materials, Fine-grain concrete, Hemp concrete, Category:Papercrete, Prestressed concrete, Reinforced concrete, Category:Tabby concrete and Category:Ultrahochfester Beton be moved to this category? And what is the difference with Category:Concrete textures? JopkeB (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- @YukiKoKo: I saw that you made some changes in this category and also moved some categories to it. So you anticipated the outcome of the discussion. On Commons that is not desirable, changes should not be done as long as a discussion is going on, no matter whether you are an expert (it looks like you are) or not. It would be better to participate in this discussion, add your comment and proposals, so that others can react. After the discussion is closed, we can make the changes, that is the correct order.
- That said, let's go on.
- One of your changes is a description, which is valuable, thanks. If someone wants to discuss it, it can be done here. Otherwise we keep it.
- Another change you made, was adding Fine-grain, Tabby concrete, Papercrete, Hemp concrete, Reinforced concrete as subcategories. Question: Does that mean that Category:Artificial stone, Category:Autoclaved aerated concrete, Category:Ferrocement, Category:Prestressed concrete and Category:Ultrahochfester Beton should not be subcategories here?
- Category:Fibre-reinforced cementitious materials is a subcategory in this category. Question: Is that right? Can it be a concrete ingredient as well as composite of concrete?
- JopkeB (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, I’m sorry. I’m still quite new to Commons, and the correct way to use the platform. In real life I’m indeed a materials scientist, but my expertise lays not in cement. However, this is more “basic” materials knowledge, so I felt confident enough to place the description and add some categories which I knew of and was sure were composites made of concrete.
- 2. I will give my opinion on the other categories that I didn’t know by name or wasn’t sure about, so we can discuss on them. Are they composites of concrete?
- - Artificial stone: As far as I know, these are regarded as mixtures and not composites. As the components are finegrained.
- - Autoclaved aerated concrete, Ferrocement, Prestressed concrete: Yes. All composites of metal or air and concrete.
- - Ultrahochfester Beton: Yes, because of the steel fibers. The category should probably have its English name though: Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC).
- 3. It’s a category of composites of concrete made out of fibres, for example the UHPC would fall in this category. It’s not an ingredient of concrete.
- I’m interested in reading your opinion. YukiKoKo (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- It is OK, YukiKoKo, I understand that when you are quite new, you do not know all the manners and customs. I might make a mistake now and then myself.
- Thanks, that is good information. So:
- Composite of concrete exists of concrete with metal or air.
- Autoclaved aerated concrete, Ferrocement, Prestressed concrete and Ultrahochfester Beton are composite of concrete and should be subcategories.
- Not Composite of concrete: Artificial stone.
- Ultrahochfester Beton should be renamed to Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC), but that would be another discussion.
- (3) Fibre-reinforced cementitious materials is a just subcategory, but should not be a subcategory of Concrete ingredients as well.
- Is this right?
- (For now I have no opinion in this matter, I know nothing about concrete, I only want to know what is true and how categories schould be related to each other, so I am glad you enlightened me.) JopkeB (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | (1) Add description Done by YukiKoKo. (2) Give some more categories this category as a parent (see list above). (3) Make a CfD for Category:Ultrahochfester Beton to be renamed to Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC). Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | @YukiKoKo: Would you please check whether all the current subcategories really belong here? | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
What is this category about? What kind of media should be in it? What should be other parents? Is it an official project of Commons? JopkeB (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- This is not something to discuss but to delete. Emtpty It and I will ask an admin to delete it. (SDC2 in between double {}) 186.174.165.203 15:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | (1) Move files to other categories or just remove them when they already have. (2) Ask for deletion of this category. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | The parent category Category:Commons resources is not for content like photos, only for internal Commons work. All files have Category:Politiques des communs as other category, which has Category:The Commons as a grandparent, which is where these files belong in the end. | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
I suspect Category:Schools of economics and Category:Economics schools are effectively redundant. We might find a way to disambiguate between higher education schools and secondary schools, if the latter exist. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that these two categories can be merged and split.
- In EN-WP and Wikidata the name for higher education in economics is "Economics schools", so I think this should be the name we keep in Commons. ("schools of economics" is one of the alternative names that Wikidata gives for "school of economic thought", which is something else.)
- There are at least two subcategories for secondary schools, so we indeed need one for those, I propose Category:Secondary economics schools or a similar name in better English.
- And please let both categories have clear descriptions.
- JopkeB (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Conclusions and proposals
[edit]- Category:Economics schools will be kept.
- The description is: Schools for higher education in economics, leading to the award of an academic degree.
- Add a See also to Category:Schools of economic thought for groups of economic thinkers who share or shared a common perspective on the way economies work. Make also a See also the other way around.
- Create Category:Secondary economics schools.
- Discription: High school with the focus on economics.
- Move all subcategories of both categories to the correct category.
- Make a redirect for Category:Schools of economics to Category:Economics education.
@Themightyquill: Do you agree? Do you have more suggestions? --JopkeB (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@JopkeB: That makes sense to me. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | See Conclusions and proposals Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
This category should be removed as it was created by the vandal "O Correto"with portraits of unknown men Ecummenic (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Propose that this category be moved to "Category:Time of day" to match the corresponding Wikidata item and more importantly, because "time of day" is the term commonly used in English. This category was originally created by what appears to be a non-native speaker of English in Italy. DanielPenfield (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- @DanielPenfield: I'm also not very perfect in English, but I think the current category name is a bit broader in meaning than the one you suggest. While "night", "noon" or "blue hour" are really "time of day", a hour, minute or second are not "time of day" but rather "parts of a day"(e.g. 1⁄24 of a day), as units of time. But it is true that this overlap is represented only by a very small part of the content of the category. --ŠJů (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, Category:Second may or may not be "part of a day" depending on the context. As I'm sure you're aware, in Physics and Astronomy, seconds appear in many places independent of Earth or of any planet. Furthermore, Category:Second (sic) and Category:Minute (sic) (which both flout the convention that categories be expressed in the plural) were added by a different editor a full year after the "Parts of a day" category was created. When you state that "current category name is a bit broader", you're presuming that the category is actually useful and well thought-out. Is it actually useful to group Category:Seconds, Category:Minutes, Category:Hours with morning, afternoon, evening, and night? As a native English speaker, I'd say you should avoid WP:MADEUP categories as much as possible and place Category:Seconds, Category:Minutes, Category:Hours in a category called Category:Units of time and Category:Morning, Category:Afternoon, Category:Evening, and Category:Night in a category called Category:Time of day which is the decomposition expressed on Wikidata, by the way. I know as a native English speaker, if I were to walk up to a stranger in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, etc. and ask "What part of the day is it right now?", I'd get some strange looks because "part of a day" is 100% WP:MADEUP. In fact, I'd expect to be able to search Commons for both terms (namely, "Time of day" and "Time units"), and insanely enough Commons search returns 100% WP:MADEUP categories for both. And what about contradictions posed by the subcategories? For example Category:Moment of silence appears in Category:Minute, but it's not "part of a day". Category:Kilometres per hour, Category:Miles per hour, Category:Hourglasses, Category:24 hours, Category:24-hour periods, Category:Maps of Hours all appear in Category:Hours, but they're not "parts of a day". A separate editor came along a year after the ill-conceived category was created and decided to mix time units with "parts of a day" and you're going to treat them as if they're somehow 1) going to be recognized outside of Commons in place of the longstanding terms and 2) actually be something people search for on Commons? Finally, as stilted as the WP:MADEUP term "parts of a day" sounds, it gets even worse with the country-specific "parts of a day" found in Category:Parts of a day by country. Category:Parts of a day in the United States sounds like a kindergartener made it up. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep broader in meaning. The wikidata-item could also be renamed in "Parts of a day" and <-- --> Also known as "time of day". Then it would be corresponding. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 08:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Question Why do you prefer a WP:MADEUP name that only exists on Commons in preference to the longstanding term "time of day" that matches not only Wikidata, but the English translations of the German Wikipedia, the Japanese Wikipedia, and Russian Wikipedia articles? Even the definition the creator gave the category is problematic: "Subdivisions of daytime" means "Subdivisions of the time during which there is daylight." Why do you prefer a category that has received no scrutiny in its 15 years of existence to Wikidata topics which are endlessly debated before being finalized and thus are higher quality? Why would you imperiously require other projects to bend to Wikicommons? Why do you assume that Commons is the authority in all matters? Furthermore this category looks like a case of The blind leading the blind, where an anonymous non-native English speaker created a category based on his or her limited knowledge, assuming that someone would come along in the future to correct it if it was off, and the next 15 years consisted of editors slowly adding categories to it as if it were somehow a well-though out non-reinvented wheel. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- DanielPenfield (talk · contribs) Undoubtedly, the categories here should be divided into two groups: "Time of day" and something like "Time units of a day". Either they can be named in such a way that one of them can be a subcategory of the other, or they could both be parallel in one overarching category. The choice of solution depends, among other things, on the fact that interwiki links and wikidata items can be revised correctly. If there is an interwiki conflict to be resolved on Wikidata that you would not know how to deal with yourself, it is possible to open a discussion about it on Wikidata. However, such discussions are usually endless and pointless. However, spliting the content of this Commons category into two subcategories can be done immediately, and I don't see any major controversy. --ŠJů (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- @DanielPenfield: I Support renaming this category to Times of day (plural name in order to be consistent with COM:CAT). Spans of time already exists and can be used for small time units like Second, Minute and Hours. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Renamed Parts of a day to Times of day per consensus and COM:CAT. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Consensus to rename Parts of a day to Time of day per consensus. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
This could merge with International living. 186.172.233.204 12:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Do you mean Category:Intentional living? 191.126.191.229 02:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Whether there is something like International living or not, this should be a category in Commons. At least I think it is a useful category. Subcategories can show how groups of people live or lived, how they dress, what accessories they use, etc. and how they differ from other groups of people. JopkeB (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Since there were no reactions for over a month, I close this discussion. This category can stay. --JopkeB (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | unresolved | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
Дану категорія - це московська пропаганда. Нічого спільного з історією та сьогоденням. Hugs (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Translation from Ukrainian: This category is Moscow propaganda. Nothing to do with history and the present.
- @Hugs: You did not indicate what your purpose is with this discussion: delete this category, change, or another action? Please let us know.
- My comment: I think the description in the Wikidata item and the parent categories indicate enough that this is not a real republic. For me this category can stay, but perhaps we can change the name to make the status of this republic more clear. What would be a better name? JopkeB (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- 1. This material must be deleted.
- 2. Leave any justification - I consider it to be cooperation with terrorist Russia.
- Because:
- - this republic did not exist
- - Russia's intentions are known - to create such a republic through terrorism.
- 3. This should not be in Wikipedia.
- If Wikipedia publishes this, it is a direct support of Russia's terrorist intentions.
- To better understand - you can go to Russia, let's say to Syktyvkar and stay there to live... at least for 5 years. 68.173.146.63 03:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, Commons, Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects are politically neutral. We on Commons try to stay neutral even in this case, no matter how much we (editors/volunteers) personally may sympathise with the Ukrainian people. Commons is for recording images and other media, also images about conflicts, even about things that are politically sensitive and in situations where one party has to endure a lot. Having such media here, does not mean that we cooperate with, support or justify the actions of one or the other party. We can delete material, but not for political reasons. Some photos even may be evidence in future lawsuits, as long as they contain facts in the descriptions (like exact date and place). Perhaps Commons:Disputed territories can give more insight.
- We group those media together in appropriate categories, with correct names and descriptions. And that is something we can change. We can change category names, descriptions, relations between categories and the way files are grouped. But only to be more correct and/or to be able to find files more easily. And that is what you might indicate here: how should the categories involved be changed in order to meet your objections? JopkeB (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Terrorism has no neutrality.
- ??? do you understand that such a republic does not exist and never existed???
- That these are all plans and fantasies of the country sponsoring terrorism..
- You write that you are not involved in politics - but in fact the publicists support terrorism??? This is a kind of personality development. Maybe you need to see a psychiatrist? 68.173.146.63 15:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
IP, please be polite. Either you accept our rules as explained by JopkeB or you will be set to read-only. --Achim55 (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Since there was no constructive answer in four months, I close this discussion. JopkeB (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | unresolved | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
What is this category about? What would be a good definition/description? What should images in this category show? JopkeB (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB Images depicting or related to the act of cast concrete. Darwin Ahoy! 01:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Darwin.
- Would that include formwork and rebar?
- If no: should Category:Pouring concrete be indeed a subcategory (and what are the differences?) OR is it about the same concept and should both categories be merged?
- JopkeB (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB 1) I'm not sure 2) I don't think so, as casting concrete implies there is a cast, which is not necessarily the case there. Eventually concrete casting should be a subcat of Pouring concrete? Darwin Ahoy! 00:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks again, Darwin. I don't know either, so we may hope someone comes by with the answers. JopkeB (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB 1) I'm not sure 2) I don't think so, as casting concrete implies there is a cast, which is not necessarily the case there. Eventually concrete casting should be a subcat of Pouring concrete? Darwin Ahoy! 00:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Darwin.
- Casting makes castings: moulded pieces of concrete that are transported afterwards and set into place. It may be performed in a factory, or on an area of the site.
- Poured concrete is poured in situ, controlled by temporary shuttering. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Andy Dingley, for me this makes it more clear. My conclusions, but I want to be sure:
- So would "The making of moulded pieces of concrete that are transported afterwards and set into place" be a good description?
- Would that not include rebar, because they are already at the right place and will not be transported afterwards?
- What about formwork? Because I think they can be used for both: for transportation and on the site area. Am I right?
- So Category:Pouring concrete should not be a subcategory?
- JopkeB (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- "Transported" may be a bit strong, as this is often merely from one side of a site to another. Possibly "moved" is better.
- Rebar and formwork are exactly the same for both. Both are broad terms, with many variants, and each may be applied equally to either pre-cast pieces or those poured in situ.
- We also have Category:Precast concrete here and don't have an obvious parent for the three of them. I'd be happy to take Category:Concrete casting as a parent (i.e. no file content) and move the content into two children Category:Precast concrete and Category:Poured concrete (definitions as I already mentioned, "precast" is probably the clearest and most-recognised term. Category:Concrete pouring (in the gerund form) could then be limited to merely the act of pouring concrete, which could apply to either. I think "precast" and poured" are our best choices of phrase for the two groups, even though neither is exactly the phrase we've used so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think Andy has this right. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- So then we might have (this is what I make of your remarks):
- "The making of moulded pieces of concrete that might be moved afterwards and set into place" would be a good description for Concrete casting. ("might be" because Concrete pouring would be a subcategory and that does not need to involve moving.)
- The category structure would be:
- Parent category: Category:Concrete casting
- Subcategories (among others):
- Category:Precast concrete
- Category:Formwork
- Category:Rebar. Would this category indeed be moved from and no longer be a subcategory of Category:Elements cast into concrete?
- Category:Concrete pouring = The act of pouring concrete. What about Category:Pouring concrete: What are the differences between these two? Can they be merged? Comment Has already be done in 2016. JopkeB (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- How would Category:Poured concrete exactly fit in here? What would be its subcategories?
- If you do not agree, please make a better proposal for the category structure. JopkeB (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- So then we might have (this is what I make of your remarks):
- Thanks, Andy Dingley, for me this makes it more clear. My conclusions, but I want to be sure:
- Stick them all under one parent. But put description headers on them to clarify their purposes, and translate those into an accessible range of languages. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- If we want to have descriptions in many languages, then I prefer Wikidata items for them. Only Category:Pouring concrete has no; can we make one even if there is no Wikipedia page for? JopkeB (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | 1) Add descriptions to the involved categories 2) Adust the category structure. Done | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Notes | Some of the participants contributed to User talk:KaiKemmann#Difference between Category:Concrete casting and Category:Pouring concrete | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
I suggest moving to Category:Cast iron cookware in Czechia, i. e. to the English name instead of badly declined Czech name of the category (correct Czech nominative would be "Litinové nádobí"). Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Agree. The name should be in English (see Category names) and have an identical name as the parent, see Universality principle. JopkeB (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment @Jan.Kamenicek and JopkeB: Generally, categories of Category:Kitchenware by country, Category:Cutlery by country and Category:Drinkware by country are concepted by origin (of), while Category:Cookware by country by location (in), bowls have both variants. A bit unsystematical. "in Czechia" would be consistent with the current content of Category:Cookware by country, but "of Czechia" would by consistent with the parent category Category:Kitchenware of Czechia.
- However, we know nothing about who is the manufacturer of the photographed cookware, and Category:Cast iron cookware has no other subcategories by country yet. Isn't better to simply merge this category with the parent category Category:Cast iron cookware, and not to keep the national subcategory at this level of the item? The categories created by that uploader are wrong not only linguistically, but also structurally. All these categories should be thoroughly revised.--ŠJů (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- I would not merge this category with the parent. There are now 12 files in, more than enough for a category of its own. Perhaps they only should have (better) other categories about what kind of cookware we see. And "in country X" is fine with me. And what do you exactly mean that it is structurally wrong? How would you revise them?
- I would rename all of the subcategories in Category:Kitchens in the Czech Republic to English names, but that would be another discussion. JopkeB (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Conclusions and proposal
[edit]- There are enough files for a category of its own. So simply merge this category with the parent category Category:Cast iron cookware is not an option.
Action Rename this category to Category:Cast iron cookware in Czechia.- A discussion about the mess in Category:Kitchens in the Czech Republic (rename them to English names) is out of scope of this category discussion and would require a seperate discussion.
@Jan.Kamenicek and ŠJů: Do you agree? If there are no objections over two weeks, I'll close the discussion and rename the category. --JopkeB (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Rename this category to Category:Cast iron cookware in Czechia. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | Renamed to Category:Cast iron cookware in the Czech Republic because "Czechia" should be "Czech Republic" | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
- What would be a good definition?
- What should be in it and what not? In Category:Shops are many subcategories that might be store elements as well, why are they not here?
- Is this a good name? Stores are allways retail, so I think "store" here is redundant and we'd better rename it to "Retail buildings elements" or "Retail elements" (I prefer the last one because you can find Cash registers and Price tags on for instance road retail as well).
JopkeB (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- @1. A good definition is hard to find. In EN-WP is only a category about the subject, without a description, same for Wikidata. Via Google I find much about shop design and related elements, but very little about elements sec.
- @2. Without a definition it is not possible to tell what should be in and what not.
- @3. Is it a good name? It turns out that:
- "Shop elements" is not a regular concept, neither is "Store elements".
- Both "Retail store elements" and "Retail elements" are in use.
- The "retail" part of "Retail store elements" seems to be necessary to distinguish it from other types of stores, see EN-WP Store (a disambiguation page).
- Conclusion: Without a good definition this discussion can not be closed and has to stay open until a passerby has more knowledge about this subject and wants to share that. JopkeB (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Proposal by JopkeB
[edit]Since there were no answers at all, my conclusion and proposal are:
- This category was only made because it also exists in the EN-WP and that is not a good enough reason to have it on Commons. There is no definition and so it cannot be of use in Commons.
- Proposal: Merge this category into Category:Shop equipment. It looks like all the subcategories and files would fit well in that category and then this category is redundant and can get a redirect.
If there are no objections on 17-6-2024, then I'll implement my proposal. --JopkeB (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Since there were no objections to the proposal for over a month, I'll close this discussion and shall implement the proposal. --JopkeB (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC) ; Done --JopkeB (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Empty category, duplicating Category:Wiki Loves EuroPride, to which contents have been moved OwenBlacker (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Delete | |||
| Actions | The category was deleted due to being empty. | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)--Adamant1 (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
This category needs to be deleted. There are no such lens, it's either AF or AI Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete agreed, see dpreview for details. --El Grafo (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Delete | |||
| Actions | The category was deleted due to being empty. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Empty יודוקוליס (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Tell Squirrel to delete it. 191.126.166.100 22:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Delete | |||
| Actions | The category was deleted due to the only file in it being up-merged. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
most likely the same with Category:Internet radio stations Miikul (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, merge Category:Webradio with Category:Internet radio stations and Category:Internet radio, depending on the content of the category and files. JopkeB (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Merge with Category:Internet radio stations and/or Category:Internet radio | |||
| Actions | The category was deleted due to being empty. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)--Adamant1 (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
One lousy file insiste. 186.172.233.204 12:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- "Sedentarism"? 186.172.233.204 12:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | The image was moved to Category:Video game controllers and the category was nominated for deletion due to being totally pointless. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | It's impossible to know if anything in an image has to do with the person having a sedentary lifestyle anyway. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC) | |||