Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2024/04
It is an unwanted category. The actual name is Henry Parry Liddon. A category of that name has been produced. This erroneous category requires deletion please. I am the uploader ```` Richard Avery (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete As a bad name to Category:Henry Parry Liddon memorial, Salisbury Cathedral and author request. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete because of typo, correct category is Category:Josep_Borrell_in_2023 // sikander { talk } 🦖 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted, Empty typo cat -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Yrrim nmmmk 91.251.125.53 22:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Closed, anon nonsense -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
"Predication of Saint Vincent Ferrer" seems like very odd English. Does this mean anything other than "Saint Vincent Ferrer Preaching"? Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Jmabel Thanks for the proposal, I fixed the name --Sailko (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Now moved by User:Sailko, who created the category in the first place, so resolved. - Jmabel ! talk 14:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you please merge this category with "Category:Franz von Mendelssohn (der Jüngere)" as they are both about the same person? Thanks in advance. 93.107.219.204 21:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Done: by OTFW. --Achim55 (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Incorrect name, should be Wine bottles and not Wines bottle. Correct category already created. detriaskies 01:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Is there any good reason "Collection" is capitalized? Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel Not really. Probably, in that moment I was influenced because it was a sub-category of "Collections", but it make no sense. If you are going to change, consider to change "Romanesque Treasure in the MNAC" too.
- Good job!
- Thanks, amador (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Seems simply resolved, no good reason for this capitalization. - Jmabel ! talk 05:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Please delete. The Nuggets skipped altogether visiting after an initial delay. source SDudley (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Redundant, and contains only a very tiny proportion of all images uploaded by users. grendel|khan 08:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
None of the items listed in this category are airports. They all are airfields. Redirect the category to Aerodromes in Antarctica and categorize all categories and media to Airfields in Antarctica. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've redefined the Category:Airports to include all aerodromes with IATA code, since IATA codes are commonly used to designate airports in commercial air transport. With this definition, some aerodromes in Antarctica are airports, as they have IATA codes. So I'm withdrawing the nomination. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Withdrawn the nomination. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
This category has no meaning. פעמי-עליון (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
not a notable person Veracious (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep Notability isn't a requirement. There are 5 items in this category, if they exist and are within SCOPE, then the category is justified. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Andy, if the topic isn't notable you need to nominate the files for deleted and then this will be deleted as empty but having 5 images is normally enough for a topic category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Done: Cross-wiki spammer. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 14:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Misspelling related to outlawed Nazi symbolism. 2003:D2:4F21:A1E8:F9E4:8A27:B127:2F3A 19:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Done: Deleted as vandalism. --Achim55 (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
should be deleted as out of scope; category is used only for personal/promotional photos of a non-notable person, that are not educationally useful Jamie7687 (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Done: Empty cat. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I think this category should be deleted Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
redirected.--RZuo (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This was nominated to be speedied as "empty and unuseful". It is empty at the moment, but I would think we should have a picture of a truing stand (and probably do, just not correctly categorized). I'll go look for one, and if not I'll take one the next time I get a chance. Jmabel ! talk 09:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I see: we have Category:Wheel truing stands. I'll make this a cat redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Worked it out myself: cat redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete because of typo, correct category is Category:Josep_Borrell_in_2022 // sikander { talk } 🦖 04:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Category has been deleted, no need for further discussion, so this discussion can be closed.
By the way: you do not need to make a discussion page for an empty or misspelled category, you can ask right away for a speedy deletion, see Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. --JopkeB (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Found this as an empty category in Category:Bukhara Mosque. Not sure what it is supposed to refered to, or if it was a mistake by the creator. Other edits that day by the same user do not shed much more light. HyperGaruda (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Category has been deleted, no need for further discussion, so this discussion can be closed.
By the way: you do not need to make a discussion page for an empty category that exists for a while, you can ask right away for a speedy deletion, see Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. --JopkeB (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
We currently have Category:AI-generated works and Category:AI-generated media. I don't think we need both. Which category should be merged into the other? Nosferattus (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, we have category trees under Category:Media (which includes things like "images", "videos", etc.) and Category:Works (which includes "paintings", "musical compositions", etc.). It seems like "media" is the more appropriate label for AI-generated stuff, IMO. Nosferattus (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking care of this. We need harmonization, also convinced by the argument of analogy with Category:Media. ----Benoît (d) 17:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I also think it should be merged to AI-generated media and would like to mention that there's also AI-discovered/generated chemicals etc but I don't think that it needs the AI-generated works cat, at least not now and in its current shape. Things like that can for now simply be put into Category:Generative artificial intelligence. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Benoît Prieur and Prototyperspective: OK, I moved the subcategories from Category:AI-generated works to Category:AI-generated media. Could someone please delete Category:AI-generated works? Nosferattus (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Category has been deleted, no need for further discussion, so this discussion can be closed. --JopkeB (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you please merge this category with "Category:Franz von Mendelssohn der Jüngere" as they are both about the same person? Thanks in advance. 93.107.219.204 21:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Merging has already been done (see Category:Franz von Mendelssohn der Jüngere), so this discussion can be closed. --JopkeB (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Empty category created in error. Request speedy deletion. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- No need for a discussion, you can ask for a speedy deletion yourself right away, see Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. After the category has been deleted (might take about a week), please close this discussion, see Commons:Categories_for_discussion#Closing_a_discussion. JopkeB (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted, empty, per above -- Jeffrey Beall (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Bitte löschen, bin der falschen Benennung im Siebmacher auf den Leim gegangen, Kategorie ist jetzt leer GerritR (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- You can ask for a speedy deletion yourself, see Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. JopkeB (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted, empty, per above -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
الصورة مسيئة للنبي والاكيد انه سنهاجمكم ان لم تمحونها ونطالب محو الصفحة بالكامل والا سوف تسببب في قتل الكثير من الناس Ziadayman2019 (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Nothing to do. --Achim55 (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Changed category name to Kourage Beatz Nsi 102.90.58.237 01:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim55 (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Why is "Village" capitalized in the category name? Jmabel ! talk 14:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Because this type of municipality is a title. ----DanTD (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- @DanTD: Not sure I understand. If you mean it as the formal name, it would be "Village of Hempstead" not "Hempstead (Village)" (not that I'm recommending that). We don't do "Washington (State)", we do "Washington (state)" even though legally it is the "State of Washington". - Jmabel ! talk 13:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that's what I thought when I orginally tried to keep the village category separate from the town category. Having said that, I understand your reason for wanting to change the category. ----DanTD (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- @DanTD: Not sure I understand. If you mean it as the formal name, it would be "Village of Hempstead" not "Hempstead (Village)" (not that I'm recommending that). We don't do "Washington (State)", we do "Washington (state)" even though legally it is the "State of Washington". - Jmabel ! talk 13:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Move its lower case on Wikipedia and is in brackets so should be lower case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Feels like consensus to me. Will remove the capitalization, otherwise leave alone. Now Category:Hempstead (village), New York. Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Although the category has been previously discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Automobiles, the result of the discussion was "no consensus". Since consensus can change, I've opened a new CFD to reassess the consensus. The arguments against the previous proposal are that the term "car" has several related meaning other than an automobile, that the cognates of the term "automobile" and its clipped form "auto" are common in many European languages, and that the name change would be disruptive for Commons. My counterargument is that although Commons is a multilingual project, English, like in many other domains, is the lingua franca of this project. Many of our categories are named according to the common usage in English. It has been already established at w:Talk:Car/Naming that the term "car" is the common term for automobiles. In my opinion, other meanings of the term can be easily disambiguated. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- TL;DR, my proposal is to rename this and all other categories to "cars", since it is clearly the most common English term for automobiles. The term "car" naturally fits with names like "flying cars", whose corresponding category is currently titled Category:Flying automobiles (aircraft). The possible disruption can be handled using bots and gadgets (including Commons:Cat-a-lot). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Support per my comments in the previous discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)- Weak oppose. I still lean the other way, because of international concerns. Seems to me that a mild inconvenience to English-speakers is better than a larger one to others. en-wiki is a poor guide on things like this, because they lack that consideration. - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per previous, & Jmabel. Also, although "car" may be more used in casual conversation of most varieties of English, the word "automobile" does not puzzle English speakers. "Automobile" is still a common and generally recognized English language term. (I just did a news web search, and in first page of results saw articles using the term in media stories from US, UK, Hong Kong, and a Thai English language news publishers as well as international wire service.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I am OK with "automobiles" (Dutch, European), though indeed "cars" and "autos" are more familiar. But I think we also have to consider the amount of work there is to do if we would decide for renaming. For me the "cost" of that large operation do not outweigh the benefits. We can use our time on Commons for better things. --JopkeB (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- cars.
- https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/car
- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/car
- car is an a1 level word.
- https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/automobile
- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/automobile
- automobile is either b2 or unclassified. RZuo (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Commonality should not be the only factor when deciding category names at Commons, accuracy and precision should also be factors, it's bad enough that vans, trucks busses and even motorbikes are regularly categorised under this category, Although that might be translation errors between real English and that spoken in other countries. Car is even more vague, Railway, lifts, cable etc, etc... It can be used to mean "any vehicle on wheels" Collins American English #1 I also think that when a naming standard has been chosen and accepted by most people for a period of time the bar for changing it should be high, the disruption caused by changing this would go on far ages and never really be sorted even with using tools Oxyman (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Withdrawn the discussion as the ambiguity of the term "car" is clear. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Wrong name. The name of this person is Tommaso Geraci. Despite the misnaming in the photograph title, there is no "Tomasso Geraci". Hence the category should be renamed Tanja Creifelds (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Agree, I made a new Category:Tommaso Geraci and renamed the single file. Ellywa (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This category can be deleted; not in use. Dick Bos (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
What's the purpose of this category? We already have Academic institutions and its subcat Higher education institutions that cover essentially what may be covered in Academies. I think it should be converted it into a dab page. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Redirected to Academia, the broadest academic category. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Fkutrte rt 112.206.102.166 23:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is now an empty category. You can ask for deletion, see Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. JopkeB (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Closing -- category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
cross wiki persistent promospam for a student and the club he formed half a year ago. Hoyanova (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Closing -- category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The images seem to be taken from paid nude photo sites, thus unlikely to have or get a free license. JiriMatejicek (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Then the images should be addressed. As long as we have the images, the category is appropriate. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: This is what I meant, but with this large number, it did not seem sensible to mark every single file. How should I do it then? JiriMatejicek (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @JiriMatejicek: I don't really know. I've never had to request a mass deletion of images. Sorry I can't help. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: This is what I meant, but with this large number, it did not seem sensible to mark every single file. How should I do it then? JiriMatejicek (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Closed: wrong venue— OP seems to be requesting/attempting a mass deletion nomination. Dronebogus (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
This is a misspelling of Category:Takanori Yokosawa, which already exists. Not a common mistake so there is no need for it to stay as a redirect either. ネイ (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Done: Merged to Takanori, as per nom. --rimshottalk 22:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Wrong category, only "solar" eclipse occurred on December 26, 2019 A1Cafel (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- agree; how can we fit it Hmains (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, empty after the only child category was merged to the solar eclipse category. --rimshottalk 22:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Wrong category, only "solar" eclipse occurred on December 26, 2019 A1Cafel (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- agree; how can it get fixed Hmains (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Done: Merged to Category:Solar eclipse of 2019 December 26 in India as per nom. --rimshottalk 22:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Term historical relating to people is nonsensical. Every person in the past is historical. Appearing in written or verbal histories or having notability are different concepts, however, saying someone is historical, or not, has no clear criteria for use at Commons. Someone's historical is always debateable, and trying to categorise is valueless in crowdsourcing approach — billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Historical persons should be redirected to Category:Historical people. Allforrous (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, apart from the fact that your suggested target is a disambiguation page, that one should also be deleted and I have already started that discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/04/Category:Historical people. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Information about people in the past can be found under Category:People by century. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Auntof6: use Category:People by century, which is inline with the conclusions of Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images. Since the categories mentioned here are already empty, I guess this solution has already been implemented and this discussion can be closed? Is this correct? JopkeB (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete -- ReneeWrites (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Done: Deleted as empty. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
What would be a good description of "Primitive technology"? What kind of subcategories and files should be in it and which not? It is now linked to the Wikidata item about prehistoric technology. Would that be a good name for this Commons category also? JopkeB (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Besides the boundaries of the category being unclear, the very word "primitive" is unnecessarily judgemental (vs., for example, "Neolithic"). Does a club (weapon) made in this century qualify as "primitive technology"? What about a simple sledge, also contemporary? What about a lever (even some non-humans use those)? The technology of some things hasn't changed. I don't see where that should leave us to describe it as "primitive". - Jmabel ! talk 14:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Sometimes when I vote keep it's because a category needs more discussion rather than swift deletion from something appearing off at first glance, especially when there are Delete votes to balance out: in this case I think the category should not be deleted but (probably) moved/renamed. The word primitive can relate to 'technology', an early stage of technology (see here which even has example "primitive toolmaking") as well as "relating to human society at a very early stage of development, with people living in a simple way without machines or a writing system" (see primitive). An alternative word is primal "basic and relating to an early stage of development". So I think both those terms could possibly be appropriate but why figure it out and discuss it when there is at least a third alternative which is more clear and matches the ENWP article?: Prehistoric technology. The thing there is that it probably needs to be split up into subcategories like Neolithic as Jmabel mentioned. I don't think primitive is judgemental but it has several problems and it indeed doesn't make clear that it's about technology made at ancient times, not for example technology existing since ancient times created in the present. In short, I think a more nuanced solution is needed and would suggest moving the cat to "Prehistoric technology" as a hub category for various subcats like maybe "Technology in the Lower Paleolithic" (insect repellents, stone weapons, stone grinders, clothes, wooden structures, etc). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Prehistoric technology per Prototyperspective. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Conclusions and proposal
[edit]- "Primitive" is not a good adjective in this category name.
- The boundaries of the category are unclear.
- Proposal/
Action
- This category should be renamed to Category:Prehistoric technology.
- [New] The description can be: "Technology that predates recorded history" (the same as in EN-WP).
- The subcategory Category:Primitive weapons should also be renamed.
Question A subcategory of Category:Primitive weapons is Category:Fukiya. Can that be considered prehistoric as well?
- The category can be split up, for instance by period.
@Jmabel, Prototyperspective, and Sbb1413: Do you agree? If there are no objections over two weeks, I'll implement the proposal. --JopkeB (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I couldn't find the info when fukiya were invented. I'd suggest that Category:Blowguns is linked as see also from the weapons category or maybe that cat should be categorized into it but I couldn't find a good source for it being used since ancient times (didn't search for long), just a few claims these have been around since the Stone Age. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'd have less of a problem with "prehistoric", but I'd still prefer more clearly defined terms like "paleolithic", "neolithic", etc., that aren't based so much on who knew about you. Is the culture of the Pacific Northwest "prehistoric" until white Europeans showed up, simply because the natives didn't have a written language? Is Alaska "prehistoric" until the Russians arrive? And, if so, does that apply even to places that were indirectly trading for Russian goods if they themselves did not have direct contact? Etc. But at least is is a less pejorative term. - Jmabel ! talk 14:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Uptil now it is a small category, so normally I would not create subcategories for "paleolithic", "neolithic". And I have not enough knowledge of the prehistory (not of Europe, let alone of other parts of the world) to properly categorize the files and subcategories. Can we for now change the name and after that someone else, with more knowledge than me, can make subcatgories as you wish? JopkeB (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | 1) Rename this category to Category:Prehistoric technology; 2) add the new description. 3) Rename subcategory Category:Primitive weapons accordingly. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | 1) The only remaining subcategory Category:Prehistoric artefacts already has some subcategories by period, whoever wants to make more of them: go ahead! 2) Category:Prehistoric technology already existed and had a redirect to Primitive technology, which I reversed. 3) Category:Prehistorical weapons already existed also. JopkeB (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
This is an empty category that is a hard redirect to a gallery page. It should have been speedily deleted under Commons:CSD#C2, but Artanisen objected on the ground that "it redirects to an important Gallery." With all due respect, this is not a reason to keep an empty category around. There are over 100,000 gallery pages on Commons, and this is the only one that has a category hard-redirected to it. R'n'B (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hello R'n'B, this redirect category was created in similar fashion as the redirect category called Armada Española . Armada Española has been on Commons since 10:47, 10 March 2015 and was not deleted. So if you want to delete this empty redirect category then you should also delete Armada Española . -Artanisen (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Artanisen, Category:Armada Española redirects to another category, not to a gallery. There is nothing wrong with redirecting categories to other categories. --R'n'B (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Right, I could fill the category similar to Category:Spanish Armada. -Artanisen (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Artanisen, Category:Armada Española redirects to another category, not to a gallery. There is nothing wrong with redirecting categories to other categories. --R'n'B (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep To me it looks like we need this category as a proper category. We need a category for this gallery page and fill it with the images in the gallery page (or even better: with subcategories, the categories of these images). So then these files are not only grouped together in a gallery page, but in a category as well (what I prefer, tough I like good gallery pages as well, like this one; for me categories are the basis, gallery pages are extra). There even is a Wikidata item (w:Q14740421) and four Wikipedia articles (in different languages). I would like to help filling this category. JopkeB (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Proposal
[edit]- We keep this category because it is about an important subject of the history of the Netherlands and there are files and (sub)categories enough to fill it.
- It will get a link in Wikidata item (w:Q14740421).
- We fill it with the files or their categories in the gallery page.
- It wil be one of the parent categories in the gallery page.
@R'n'B and Artanisen: Do you agree? If there are no objections, I'll implement the proposal in two weeks and shall then close this discussion. --JopkeB (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have no objection. --R'n'B (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep that's a good idea JopkeB. You could use the Category:Spanish Armada as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artanisent (talk • contribs) 29 may 2024 12:51 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | See Proposal Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | It turns out there was already Category:Navy of the Dutch Republic, so I redirected Category:Staatse vloot to this category. JopkeB (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
What is the difference between Category:Opening day and Category:Open days? Can these two categories be merged or can one be a parent of the other?--125.230.84.246 12:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Two different meanings. Open days are public events at places/locations that are typically closed to the public. While opening day is for places that opening for operations/trade for the first time (e.g. a supermarket). Bidgee (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Inaugurations?! 186.172.62.164 13:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Results so far:
- These categories are about different concepts.
- So both categories should stay.
- Both categories have already descriptions reflecting the definitions given by User: Bidgee.
- So this discussion can be closed without any changes.
- What is your question about Category:Inaugurations? It looks like this category has no relation with the subject of this Discussion, so please start another discussion if you have a real question. Otherwise this discussion can be closed. JopkeB (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Results so far:
- Category:Inaugurations?! 186.172.62.164 13:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Since there were no new insights or questions, this category can be closed. Both categories are to stay, and both already have good descriptions. No actions are needed. --JopkeB (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Duplicates category "Category:Fishing museums" without a clear difference. I normally nominate the newer category for deletion in cases like this, but "Fishery museums" seems to have received less interest over the years, e.g. the Wikidata link goes to "Fishing museums" and that category also has a more developed set of subcategories. Blythwood (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agree Merge Category:Fishery museums into Category:Fishing museums, for the reasons you mention. JopkeB (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Since there were no objections for over three monts, I close this discussion and implement the proposal. --JopkeB (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:Fishery museums into Category:Fishing museums Done (with help of User:Blythwood) | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
Contains the same images like Category:Stolpersteine in Stockholm. Both categories seem to be equivalent and should be merged. Frupa (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agree!👍 /Frankie Fouganthin 13:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agree Merge. Keep the category with the English name (because on Commons category names should be in English), give the other a redirect. JopkeB (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:Snubbelstenar invigdes i Stockholm into Category:Stolpersteine in Stockholm Done but see Notes | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | It turns out that "Category:Snubbelstenar invigdes i Stockholm" is about an event, the unveiling of the stolpersteine. So I kept the category, renamed it to Category:Unveiling of Stolpersteine in Stockholm, gave it Category:Stolpersteine in Stockholm as an extra parent and removed the files from Category:Stolpersteine in Stockholm JopkeB (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
What?!.. 186.174.36.44 22:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment I apologize for my lack of explanation. This category is "Lipstick paint not all area". Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- What is the reason this category is being discussed? What is your question about it? Should it be deleted, be renamed or merged, get a description or whatever? JopkeB (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Lipstick only center
Since it is unclear why this category has should be discussed, and there was no answer to my question after more than three months, I close this discussion. --JopkeB (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
this entire cat tree should be deleted. frivolous categorisation. RZuo (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agree very much. This category and its subcategories should be deleted, their files should only be in regular categories for portrait photographs. JopkeB (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete this cat and all categories within it too. TheImaCow (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Clear consensus. What are you waiting for? Act. 186.173.161.234 02:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- See Commons:Categories for discussion#Closing a discussion: You have to wait at least two weeks to see whether there are other opinions. JopkeB (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Clear consensus. What are you waiting for? Act. 186.173.161.234 02:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Ask for deletion of Category:Women ears by name and its subcategories Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | This category was already empty. Also affected: some parent categories, asked for deletion as well --JopkeB (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
merge to Category:Plates with food? any difference between them? RZuo (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Plates with food, which has existed 10 years longer. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do it. Two weeks have passed. 186.174.177.110 14:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done after another two months of zero objections. Sinigh (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do it. Two weeks have passed. 186.174.177.110 14:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
redirected to Category:Plates with food.--RZuo (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This category ought to be renamed “Soviet locomotive ...” Zenwort (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Done: per request. --MB-one (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I believe I'm stupid as I can't understand how to use this. Many women categories are grandchildren of this category. So if we find a childhood image of my granny will it be in a category of "old women"? Are there women who have always been old?!
Moreover this category has many subcategories under wrong letters. For example, "the Netherlands" and other "the" countries appear under letter T, together with Togo! Congratulations! 186.172.76.120 19:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- There are definitions in each category about old/young people, also in this one.
- The sorting is a problem of the template that is being used. JopkeB (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Since there were no further reactions and there is no need to change the category, I close this discussion. --JopkeB (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Parentless category that serves no apparent purpose. Jmabel ! talk 04:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Done: Empty. Created by LTA. --Yann (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Category:Relief Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman) already existed for over two years. --FakirNL (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it did exist. The content has been moved to the nominated title for a better fit in the category tree nested in Category:Joop Puntman. If this is an undesired modification, please clarify. Chescargot (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to rename a page, file or category, it should be moved. You don't create a new page/file/category and claim credits for stuff you didn't do. Thought this was common knowledge. - FakirNL (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently not. It did not come to my mind that this was similar to creating new pages as in Wikipedia. Sorry about that. Let me see how I can correct this. Chescargot (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I managed to reinstate the original category, populated and renamed it now. It is now [[Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman)2]], with the indicator 2 for the time being, till the faulty [[Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman)]] has been deleted. Maybe its common knowledge also, but I do not know (yet) how to delete a category, so please kindly assist me on the matter. Thankyou. Chescargot (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Deleting categories is something obviously only administrators can do. - FakirNL (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- My proposal:
- Keep Category:Relief Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman) because this is the most clear name of the three.
- Make a redirect for Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman).
- Move the content from Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman)2 to Category:Relief Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman). Delete this category because this is an odd category name, where no one will be searching for. (When this discussion has been closed, you can ask for a speedy deletion, referring to this discussion.)
- JopkeB (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)`
- @FakirNL and Chescargot: Do you agree with this proposal? Do you have other ideas? --JopkeB (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- The history must be respected and the oldest category should get the good name. - FakirNL (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I did not look at dates of creation in the categories. I think that is only of interest if there are two categories with equally good names, which is not the case here. JopkeB (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- The redirect Category:Relief Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman) should be deleted first, and Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman)2 should be moved. - FakirNL (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why? I think "Relief" in the category name makes it clear at a glance what this category is about. I think it is therefor a better name than just Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman). JopkeB (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi JopkeB, the aimed for category-tree structure is as follows:
- > Category:Joop Puntman
- >> Category:Works by Joop Puntman
- >>> Category:Reliefs by Joop Puntman
- >>>> Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman)
- In other words, the fact that the nominated category is in fact a relief becomes apparent from the superior branch (Category:Reliefs by Joop Puntman, please check). Moreover, in this fashion all reliefs in this category are then arranged by name in alphabetical order. Adding 'Relief' to the name Willem Barentz etc would disrupt such setup. Chescargot (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- This category tree does not change my opinion.
- Order in categories can be made with other means than names, by adding "|Willem Barentz" in the parent category (or any other sort key). (See Commons:Categories#Sorting categories.)
- In this way you always have to scroll down to the parent categories to know this is about a relief, you cannot see it at a glance, whenever you see the category.
- JopkeB (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- This category tree does not change my opinion.
- Why? I think "Relief" in the category name makes it clear at a glance what this category is about. I think it is therefor a better name than just Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman). JopkeB (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- The redirect Category:Relief Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman) should be deleted first, and Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman)2 should be moved. - FakirNL (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I did not look at dates of creation in the categories. I think that is only of interest if there are two categories with equally good names, which is not the case here. JopkeB (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- The history must be respected and the oldest category should get the good name. - FakirNL (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I managed to reinstate the original category, populated and renamed it now. It is now [[Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman)2]], with the indicator 2 for the time being, till the faulty [[Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman)]] has been deleted. Maybe its common knowledge also, but I do not know (yet) how to delete a category, so please kindly assist me on the matter. Thankyou. Chescargot (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently not. It did not come to my mind that this was similar to creating new pages as in Wikipedia. Sorry about that. Let me see how I can correct this. Chescargot (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to rename a page, file or category, it should be moved. You don't create a new page/file/category and claim credits for stuff you didn't do. Thought this was common knowledge. - FakirNL (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Proposal
[edit]- Move the files in Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman)2 to Category:Relief Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman). This is the clearest name for the category.
- Make a deletion request for Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman)2 because it is only a temporary category and has an odd name.
- Make a redirect for Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman) to Category:Relief Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman).
- Make sure the category tree is OK.
@FakirNL and Chescargot: Do you agree? If not, please make a proposal we all can agree with. If there are no reaction within a month, I'll implement the proposal. --JopkeB (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have no objection, thanks for the follow-up. Chescargot (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- This way you are still not keeping the oldest category. How hard can this be? The new categories (currently named "Category:Relief Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman)" and "Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman)") need to be deleted and the old one (currently named "Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman)2") need to renamed to whatever you want the title to be. You need to respect Wikipedia edit histories! - FakirNL (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is not Wikipedia. In Commons we make our own decisions and they may be different than in Wikipedia. If there are two categories in Commons that are about the same subject, then we keep the one with the best, most clear name, not necessary the oldest one. If not the oldest one is choosen, then we give a redirect to the oldest one to the category we keep and think has the best name. JopkeB (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- This way you are still not keeping the oldest category. How hard can this be? The new categories (currently named "Category:Relief Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman)" and "Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman)") need to be deleted and the old one (currently named "Category:Willem Barentz (Joop Puntman)2") need to renamed to whatever you want the title to be. You need to respect Wikipedia edit histories! - FakirNL (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? (no counter proposal that we all can agree upon) | |||
| Actions | See Proposal Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
The town of Armagh needs to be disambiguated from the eponymous county of Armagh. All child categories need a disambiguator such as "Armagh (city)" as in Wiki. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I would say: Go ahead! See Category:Groningen for an example ("province" can be replaced by "country"). Perhaps not all child categories need a disambigious page of their own, (city) or (county)/county of in the category name will be good enough. JopkeB (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Looks like the change has been applied. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Meaningless and random category. Certainly no explanation as to what it is, or what the inclusion criteria are. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Random pictures of gardens, no purpose is visible behind this category. TheImaCow (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest deletion for the category, because it is not useful or needed, there is many better categories for the images. I think this discussion can be closed. --Velma (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Conclusion: Consensus to delete. I'll proceed with the deletion and ensure that every image is categorized. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
A vague category that is supposedly a disambiguation category, though instead is filled up. What is a historic building, is just a building or was a building. The category as a meta category or disambiguation category is just problematic to manage without any real benefit — billinghurst sDrewth 05:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- it's a problem that inevitably arises when users not familiar with commons categorisation fill in categories during upload.
- the problem will be solved probably only if all such categories beginning with "historic" are deleted.
- otherwise, when this one is deleted, and when those users type "histor" in the category field, other such categories are prompted and then files get added to those. RZuo (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have already added some others, and today am just going to tackle those that I see today. The others can be managed in time. Have to start somewhere — billinghurst sDrewth 14:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- we can try to eliminate as many of these ambiguous categories as we can, but...
- some valid categories do begin with "histor" (e.g. "history of xx").
- we cant control what users do. for many people, it is intuitive to describe an old building as either "old building" or "historic(al) building" (applicable to not only buildings but also any other concepts). both of these names are problematic to use as commons categories.
- so in the end, those users will still add files to those cats with such valid titles.
- imho it's inevitable that we keep some of these cats with very generic titles so that they catch all such files added by clueless users. then other users can sort them into better cats. RZuo (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- We do have Category:Old maps, which is for old maps in public domain. Similarly, we can create Category:Old buildings for old buildings in countries with limited COM:FOP. We also have Category:Heritage buildings for buildings explicitly declared as heritage. There used to be Category:Historical images for images in public domain. I have created Category:Old images for such images. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better to avoid the words "old" and "historic..." at all in category names and use something like "in the public domain" instead? (The term of public domain might be different for each country.) I helped implementing the conclusions of Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images, but I never read in the discussion page that the purpose originally was about public domain. Otherwise they might have been kept or renamed. JopkeB (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. "Old" is subjective. "Historic" just means there's something historical about a place -- the "something" might date from centuries ago, or from yesterday. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- can you not create these problematic categories? RZuo (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better to avoid the words "old" and "historic..." at all in category names and use something like "in the public domain" instead? (The term of public domain might be different for each country.) I helped implementing the conclusions of Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images, but I never read in the discussion page that the purpose originally was about public domain. Otherwise they might have been kept or renamed. JopkeB (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- We do have Category:Old maps, which is for old maps in public domain. Similarly, we can create Category:Old buildings for old buildings in countries with limited COM:FOP. We also have Category:Heritage buildings for buildings explicitly declared as heritage. There used to be Category:Historical images for images in public domain. I have created Category:Old images for such images. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- we can try to eliminate as many of these ambiguous categories as we can, but...
- I have already added some others, and today am just going to tackle those that I see today. The others can be managed in time. Have to start somewhere — billinghurst sDrewth 14:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with comments above, but I note it is now a disambiguation page pointing to some better categories - I think it might be better to leave it so for the benefit of new users to help steer them to more proper categorization. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Infrogmation: How does "category:buildings" not steer them to where we want them start? Everything on that page is not a disambiguation term, it is all explanatory. We would be better to remove the category, and if needed develop a page Help:Historic that redirects to Help:Categorisation which we develop to help people to better categorise. Leaving the categories in place just has them being populated and needing constant maintenance for no value. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Special:UploadWizard when you want to fill up the categories. noobs tend to write "historic/old..." if they are uploading such things. RZuo (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Infrogmation: How does "category:buildings" not steer them to where we want them start? Everything on that page is not a disambiguation term, it is all explanatory. We would be better to remove the category, and if needed develop a page Help:Historic that redirects to Help:Categorisation which we develop to help people to better categorise. Leaving the categories in place just has them being populated and needing constant maintenance for no value. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Conclusions so far + questions
[edit]- The category name is too vague to be useful.
- Category names with vague words in the name like "historic..." and "old" should be deleted, not get a redirect or become a disambigious page, to prevent that they are used by unexperienced uploaders. Another opinion is that we should keep some of these categories with very generic titles so that they catch all such files added by clueless users. then other users can sort them into better category. This means that editors should spend time on this kind of maintainance, which is not desirable.
- Though, we can create Category:Old buildings (or use something like "in the public domain" instead) for buildings that are in the public domain in countries with limited FOP.
- Perhaps it is even better to develop a page Help:Historic that redirects to Help:Categorisation which we develop to help people to better categorise.
@Billinghurst, RZuo, Sbb1413, and Infrogmation: Question
- Do you agree with the conclusions? Is this a good summary of the discussion?
- What would be a good proposal to be able to close this discussion in the near future?
--JopkeB (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Totally agreed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment "Historic" and "old" appear to be used when they are at least a lifetime ago, and historic additionally when it has a level of notability or notoriety, usually with an event or a person. They are too vague. Their notability needs to be specific, tied to a person or tied to an event, something that demonstrates the importance. This could just be an English-language attribution, so I would like to hear a broader opinion. I claim no expertise in this area, just have a dislike for vague and mis-used categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions |
| |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
What is a "historical people", aren't they just people? All past people are historical, so it isn't filling any clear educational purpose. It doesn't form a useful disambiguation purpose. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. There is information about people in the past under Category:People by century. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete -- ReneeWrites (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is now a Disambiguation category. I suggest to keep it that way, add Category:People by century and remove Category:Historical persons. I am afraid that there will always be people who are searching for historical people (or persons) and then they get a page where they can click to the correct category. JopkeB (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree @JopkeB: , people will just populate the disambiguation category. I still feel that we are better to delete such antithetical categories. Plus ancient peoples has different connotations in the English language to historical peoples. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is always a risk, about whatever subject the disambituation category is. JopkeB (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is no longer a valid disambiguation page, it only has one term and that does not mean historical people. The cat serves no valid purpose. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- But when we add Category:People by century then there are two. JopkeB (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is no longer a valid disambiguation page, it only has one term and that does not mean historical people. The cat serves no valid purpose. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is always a risk, about whatever subject the disambituation category is. JopkeB (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree @JopkeB: , people will just populate the disambiguation category. I still feel that we are better to delete such antithetical categories. Plus ancient peoples has different connotations in the English language to historical peoples. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Moot | |||
| Actions | Delete this category, per Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/04/Category:Historic buildings. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Seems to be a duplicate of parent cat --Arlo James Barnes 22:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, though there could be something like "Photographs from the Okeanos Explorer" for many of these images. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- That would imply a category:videos from Okeanos Explorer as well for proper diffusion. Support. Arlo James Barnes 20:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- That would imply a category:videos from Okeanos Explorer as well for proper diffusion.
I created Category:OKEANOS Explorer Program NOAA for the whole program (so Category:Okeanos Explorer is now a redirect to it). I don't see problems in creating subcategories for videos or photographs. --Ruthven (msg) 11:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)