Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2018/05
made by mistake Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Bad name}}. @Villy Fink Isaksen: Using the bad name template is a better option in cases like this because no discussion is needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Category has been deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Made Category:Nour Ali Boroumand for this. - Alexis Jazz 01:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Can probably be speedy-deleted as empty and misnamed; I doubt even a redirect is wanted, unless this is a common form of the name (which doesn’t seem likely; it’s not in WD anyway, which includes four different French transliterations FWIW).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Category has been deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
They meant "Twins from the United States". I moved the five or so people that were here to appropriate subcategories of Category:Twins. - Alexis Jazz 01:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Done: as empty cat. --JuTa 07:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
self-promotion, cf. luxo:Granada hurghada Schniggendiller (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- I tagged it as empty to get it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Closing -- cat has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
G7, duplicate category Katanori04 (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Category has been deleted. It was a duplicate of Category:Élodie Frégé. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary category, delete. Kürschner (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- May we have a valid argument ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Closing to collect discussion in one place. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary category, delete. Kürschner (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- May we have a valid argument ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Closing to collect discussion in one place. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary category, delete. Kürschner (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Closing to collect discussion in one place. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary category, delete. Kürschner (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- May we have a valid argument ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Closing to collect discussion in one place. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary category, delete. Kürschner (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- May we have a valid argument ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Closing to collect discussion in one place. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary category, delete. Kürschner (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Closing to collect discussion in one place. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
We should move this cat to a somehow "masculine" name. Ewes -testicles? No. Rams-testicles? Yes. E4024 (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ram would be correct, ewe is the female form ("Mutterschaf" in German). While I think that most people who learned englisch in shool would know "bull" od "sheep", I think that most wouldn't know ram and therfore in looking in "mammal testicles" wouldn't see that the category is for the male sheep. --Kersti (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry. I also learned English at school. In Turkey we call them "koç yumurtası" (and eat a lot :) which literally mean "egg(s) of the ram". --E4024 (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is a difference between Turkey and Germany. Here most people eat mainly pork or sometimes beef. Of course this doesn't apply for people of Turkish descent, who in most cases won't eat pork. But this difference means in fact, that there may be differences in which words children learn at school which are related to the land where someone visits school. --Kersti (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, pork is cheap everywhere, the Spaniards say "the pork saved us (during and) after the Civil War", meaning that they could have protein eating every part of this humble animal that does not require too much husbandry. The pigs eat what they find in the nature, bathe in ponds and that's it. Of course all this small talk (mine and yours) are a little "chat" between Commons colleagues who work a lot, voluntarily, and need some small breaks. :) --E4024 (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is a difference between Turkey and Germany. Here most people eat mainly pork or sometimes beef. Of course this doesn't apply for people of Turkish descent, who in most cases won't eat pork. But this difference means in fact, that there may be differences in which words children learn at school which are related to the land where someone visits school. --Kersti (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry. I also learned English at school. In Turkey we call them "koç yumurtası" (and eat a lot :) which literally mean "egg(s) of the ram". --E4024 (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep after I had a look at the subcategories in Category:Mammal testicles. --Leyo 12:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep 1: keeping the general term is helpful for non-native anglophones and hinders no one.
- 2: sex-specific terms are usually not exclusive to species, for instance cavies (guinea pigs) and actual pigs share terms for males and females. (But cavy young are pups, not piglets.)
- 3: some species have separate terms for juvenile and mature males and females.
- 4: rare intersex cases means it's possible to have, e.g., sheep testicles that don't belong to something that would be called a ram. --Pitke (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- I understand two people -other than the cat opener- disagree with me, so if there is no-one supporting my opinion we can close this discussion within a short span of time. If there's nothing new until Monday, I'll be closing it. --E4024 (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Done The discussion is closed. Thanks for your participation. --E4024 (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Not consistent with our cat titles. Look around Category:Logos by industry to find something please. E4024 (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete in favour of already existing Category:Logos of organizations. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Done - Deleted by an admin. --E4024 (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Der Bug wurde behoben siehe Phab:T111815, wie man in Category:Large_SVG_files sieht werden auch Dateien über 70MB richtig gerendert JoKalliauer (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- But an old version of File:1_42_polytope_7-cube.svg does not render. JoKalliauer (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Category has been deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I think per general rule its title should be "Category:Hand dynamometers" (plural) but we have only one file and its cat. (I removed unnecessary/unrelated cats from the cat and the only file thereat.) E4024 (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- OK. But Hand dynamometers are one of the main methods to assess hand grip strength to assess presence of Frailty syndromes in both elderly and in young multimorbid people. I think Frailty syndrome category should include Hand dynamometers under it. Check this link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031940605000878. Thanks for discussion.--Ashashyou (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- OK. Ashashyou, "as a general rule" cat titles are "plural". This implies that cats should have at least "two files", "one subcat and one file", or perhaps "one subcat" but not "only one file". Of course if one opens a cat this morning, knowing that "now I have only one file for this cat, but this afternoon I will upload two more" that is also OK. If not, this can go to the extreme limit of opening a cat for every file! (Did I just use an exclamation mark? Sorry. :) Regards. --E4024 (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. What if you find a single file and you are sure it is part of a big serial or sequence? Leaving the file "floating" might cause it to be "buried". I think putting a category for single files, if other files are "highly expected to be present (burried) or to come", is beneficial. This allows linking files to Wikipedia pages in all languages, plus linking them on wikidata. This would help future file to be categorized more easily, plus helping writers in all languages to reach file to add them on the related pages in an easier way. I think "justified" over categorization makes sense than undercategorisation. I assume that there is a huge amount of uncategorized photos on commons. I think people uploading new media are likely to categorize their media if they found a category already present when searching for it. I very frequently meet uncategorized media or "mal-categorized" in Arabic or other languages because the uploader do not know how to categorize or do not know "What would seem to be the proper category". I am sure you and other commons colleagues meet this issue alot. This is a big issue that i advice you to carry it to other admins to discuss, especially with the growing number of uncategorised media. Seems that this point needs to be revised and handled by some way, for example holding the single-filed category for 5 years then delete if no second file added or by any other way. Like the "nucleus" of articles on Wikipedias. My personal perception of commons that it should carry a category for all things known to humanity. One other thing, i do not have permission to delete wrong categories that i have made, so if i removed "hand dynamometer" and added the plural one, it would still co-exist virtually. Thanks for this opportunity to discuss the categorization concerns. I am always happy working on commons, especially meeting open minded patient persons as you. regards--Ashashyou (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have added the Frailty syndrome category to the new Plural one. regards--Ashashyou (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Doctor, thanks for your kind words, but thank God I'm still not a patient; although being called names with total impunity -elsewhere- hurts a lot. (Maybe you wanted to say passionate; now that's right. I try to do everything with passion.) I'm sure they will delete the empty cat soon and you may begin to fill in the new one. Not much more to discuss here. --E4024 (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- OK. Ashashyou, "as a general rule" cat titles are "plural". This implies that cats should have at least "two files", "one subcat and one file", or perhaps "one subcat" but not "only one file". Of course if one opens a cat this morning, knowing that "now I have only one file for this cat, but this afternoon I will upload two more" that is also OK. If not, this can go to the extreme limit of opening a cat for every file! (Did I just use an exclamation mark? Sorry. :) Regards. --E4024 (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Done - I marked it as empty for deletion; we have a new, "plural" cat. Closed. --E4024 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Copy of Category:Bru people — Le Loy (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Ле Лой: Are you sure? We have en:Brau people (who number in the hundreds and speak en:Brao language) and en:Bru people (who are well over 100k in number, and who speak en:Bru language. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: , you are right, they are different although Brou and Bru are related, but Brau (Brao, Lave, Lawae) is a different ethnic group. My mistake. — Le Loy (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Ле Лой: Did you remove some images from this category that could be returned there? - Themightyquill (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: , all cleaned up, Bru/Brou are Bru now, Brao/Brau are Brau. — Le Loy (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Added differentiation category descriptions at the top of each category. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I am emptying this cat for deletion. We have cats for female and male "Vocalists from Armenia". We can also open a Category:Armenian language vocalists, under Category:Vocalists by language. E4024 (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Done I took the contents into the relevant cats, also opening a new one, Category:Armenian language vocalists. --E4024 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I propose to delete this category, because this company ran 3 or more bush railways at various locations NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Firstly, please don't blank categories before nominating them. It makes it much harder to understand why they were created and how they fit. Second, should we rename to Category:Ellis and Burnand railways (or some equivalent) to link Category:Ellis and Burnand Tramway, Ongarue and Category:Ellis and Burnand Tramway, Mangapehi? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think that is a good alternative to deleting this more or less obsolete category, because there are more than two tramways. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Ellis and Burnand bush railways. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I found images for the category. I'd like to withdraw this nomination. Kalbbes (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Closing -- initiator no longer wants discussion/deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Doppione di Van Mieghem Museum CristianNX 09:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Close -- cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Needs to be deleted, moved to Category:Arye Bar Lostam (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Close -- cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a thing called "Atlas" that things get named after. Atlas just means a collection of maps or maybe the mountains of same name. We could either delete this category or recategorise to the belonging subcategories. Allo002 (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Closing: withdrawn. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Redundant with Category:Ruatahuna ? I'm not an expert - just asking. Themightyquill (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I guess these categories were identical, and thus just moved one. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Category:Ruatauhuna emptied by its creator, and deleted by me. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I saw the following at the TP of this cat: "de: Kann vielleicht mal jemand, der weiß, wie man das macht, die beiden Kategorien "noodles" und "pasta" vereinigen. Sie scheinen mir ziemlich das gleiche zu bedeuten. en: Could someone, who knows how to, join the two categories "noodles" and "pasta". I think they mean at least nearly the same. --Frank C. Müller 18:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)"
- Certainly there may be some confusion around here. As of several minutes, Category:Pasta was a subcat of Category:Noodles. Then both are also subcats of Category:Boiled food. If Noodles is the father cat of pasta, then "pasta" should not be under "boiled food". (That is not why I opened the discussion BTW.) Is pasta or noodles -before being cooked- not pasta or noodles? Why should they be under a "boiled" item? These are only small questions to provoke discussion. The main issue is the question upwards that has not been responded since. That is what encouraged me to open this discussion. --E4024 (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Both cats were also under Category:Flour-based food, which I tried to remedy by opening a new cat. --E4024 (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe we can solve the double "boiled food" cats by adding Category:Pasta to a "new" Category:Boiled food of Italy. --E4024 (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- I also made the above-mentioned edit; but the issues abound. We have Category:Cereal products, used somewhat wrongly, then a confusion at Category:Cereal-based food; as some countries, like Germany have Category:Cereal-based foods in Germany as a subcat, while others, like Lithuania, use Category:Flour-based food of Lithuania directly under "cereals", although we have a Category:Flour-based food by country also. "Plant-based", "vegetable-based" all give an "impression" (an impression, I may be wrong) that concepts might have been used kind of loosely around food items. Began to discuss noodles and went far away. I know. But I believe we should discuss more beforehand, instead of having to open discussions afterwards. If you want to continue, please do so, I think I'm done by now. BTW discussing by myself helps me to organize things, at least mentally. Frank C. Müller, anything to say? --E4024 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- I would say, we delete the category Pasta and use only Noodles, because the categories in commons should be named only in english. A category-redirect from Pasta to Noodles would be sufficient. gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Frank C. Müller: I think this is a translation issue. In English, Pasta refers primarily to Italian noodles, primarily made from Durum. See en:Pasta. en:Noodles can be made from a broader variety of ingredients, and have origins around the world. Chinese egg noodles, for instance. I was shocked when I saw an Italian restaurant in Germany called Nudelhaus, because a Noodle House in the English-speaking world would almost surely be Asian food. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- I would say, we delete the category Pasta and use only Noodles, because the categories in commons should be named only in english. A category-redirect from Pasta to Noodles would be sufficient. gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the hint. Then my issue is done. gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Difference explained, nomination withdrawn. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Category is empty. Lordtobi (✉ 09:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{tl|empty page)). @Lordtobi: Empty categories usually don't need discussion, so tagging with the empty page template is often a better option. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Oh ok, thanks. I'm kind of a Commons newbie :P Lordtobi (✉ 17:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Closing -- cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
wrong spelling cat Afifa Afrin (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I just tagged it with {{Bad name}}. @Afifa Afrin: Cases like this don't really need discussion, so the bad name template is often a better option. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Will be done next time. -Afifa Afrin (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Closing -- cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Empty category redundant with Category:Statues of Elisabeth of Hungary – b_jonas 11:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of normal format, Category:Statues of Elisabeth of Hungary. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
www.acecqa.gov.au 197.45.219.221 22:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- This appears to be a test of some sort, as that domain belongs to the Australian Children's Education & Care Quality Authority, and has nothing to do with the Friden Flexowriter. —howcheng {chat} 05:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Because I want to be 80.229.137.112 14:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Vandalism. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Accidentally created a redundant category Sadads (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Achim (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Notability? S a g a C i t y (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- en:William Gill (sea captain) - Themightyquill (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- aha - so withdrawn then. As an aside should anonymous people be allowed to create categories? S a g a C i t y (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Going point. I'm often surprised that they are able to. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- aha - so withdrawn then. As an aside should anonymous people be allowed to create categories? S a g a C i t y (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Issue resolved. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
please delete it. i gave a wrong name, than moved IKhitron (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
"Photographer from Sweden" and Commons admin. Most pictures are about this young gentleman himself. I want to ask User:Josve05a himself, directly and openly: As admin, or any Commoner like myself, don't you see any "personal promotion" in having so many pictures of yourself here? I have my doubts in keeping this cat just as it is. If it were me, I would have proposed the deletion of my own images (even if I were 20) and as I'm a bit older, with all due respect to our colleague I would like to tell him that when he is my age and he remembers he had so many personal pictures in Commons at some point of time, he will smile and say "E4024 was right". This I say with some life experience. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance and in public. Sorry Jonatan. A cordial hug. E4024 (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep @E4024: Most images are from Wikimedia events (Wikimedia Sweden or Foundation) and meetings (see also subcats) and are therefore in scope per Commons:Project scope#File in use on Commons only. It is praxis to have one category per person from such events Category:Wikipedians by country. The images which are selfies, are in use, or should be immediately deleted. This category serves its purpose of collecting all images of me. If you want to nominate the images for deletion, please do so, but don't try and circumvent something by trying to delete the category itself - that is counterproductive if anything. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Sufficient footprint for a category to be useful in the Commons hierarchy. Whether Wikimedians have a RTV after a public footprint exists, is a separate generic discussion. --Fæ (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Individual images tagged with {{User page image}} can be deleted if not in use. Images from Wikimedia events are automatically in scope. Jee 07:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Josve05a: don't worry, I have done nothing counterproductive nor will ever do so. (BTW I was not suggesting any deletion but recommending you to withdraw and keep your personal pics in an album, not in Commons.) This discussion will also be productive; remember to read it again when you double your age. Now I'm closing it just as I opened it myself. Take care. --E4024 (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Done - Closing; no action needed. --E4024 (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Addendum:@E4024: Please use user talk pages or the email function to advise about such stuff - do not create CfDs or RDs to make a COM:POINT. I might be involved, but I'm still trouting you, and pointing to wmf:Non-discrimination policy for commenting on a user's (my) age on multiple occasions to make your COM:POINT. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Do we really need categories for the GPW jubilee medals and other jubilee medals? These are very low-level/non-notable awards and just indicate they survived x amount of years long after the war, all of which can be calculated from the death date. It's a bit tedious to add these categories, and there's no importance to them. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion merged to Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Recipients of the Jubilee Medal "Thirty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" - Themightyquill (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Category:Recipients of the Jubilee Medal "Forty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945"
[edit]Do we really need categories for the GPW jubilee medals and other jubilee medals? These are very low-level/non-notable awards and just indicate they survived x amount of years long after the war, all of which can be calculated from the death date. It's a bit tedious to add these categories, and there's no importance to them. And many jubilee medals are redundant to each other anyway. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion merged to Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Recipients of the Jubilee Medal "Thirty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" - Themightyquill (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Do we really need categories for the GPW jubilee medals and other jubilee medals? These are very low-level/non-notable awards and just indicate they survived x amount of years long after the war, all of which can be calculated from the death date. It's a bit tedious to add these categories, and there's no importance to them. And many jubilee medals are redundant to each other anyway. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion merged to Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Recipients of the Jubilee Medal "Thirty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" - Themightyquill (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Category:Recipients of the Jubilee Medal "70 Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945"
[edit]Do we really need categories for the GPW jubilee medals and other jubilee medals? These are very low-level/non-notable awards and just indicate they survived x amount of years long after the war, all of which can be calculated from the death date. It's a bit tedious to add these categories, and there's no importance to them. And many jubilee medals are redundant to each other anyway. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion merged to Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Recipients of the Jubilee Medal "Thirty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" - Themightyquill (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
category is empty and redirected in a misleading way, because also underground power lines are possible (and definitely exist) in Kerala. Te750iv (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Merging discussions at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Power lines in Andhra Pradesh
category is empty and redirected in a misleading way (to overhead power lines), because also underground power lines are possible (and definitely exist) in Karnataka. Te750iv (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Merging discussions at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Power lines in Andhra Pradesh. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Wrong spelling, please help to delete it. Fayhoo (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. @Fayhoo: Next time, you can just use the {{Bad name}} template for typos. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, next time, I will try it.--Fayhoo (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
We also have Category:Cream liqueurs. Sorry to disturb you with my unease about developing Commons. E4024 (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Opened by mistake. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Of the two flags in this cat, one is used on a user page (of the uploader) and the other is not used anywhere. Frankly I have never heard of any "Federated States of Antarctica", even as a "fictional" entity. Therefore I personally believe we should delete this cat. E4024 (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with deletion as per above. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Admin, the cat is already empty. Please delete it. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Done: I deleted the empty category. --Y.haruo (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
لتبسغعبينجة ز٨. خ. فقال. وهغىاا 160.167.116.212 09:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Not done: No valid reason for discussion. --jdx Re: 07:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Cat with only one file (a "Beretta" pistol, which has own cats elsewhere) and related to Category:Pistols of Egypt which has nothing else other than this cat. Overcategorization. E4024 (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. According to en:Beretta M1951 there was a variant made in Egypt, sold as the "Helwan" but we don't seem to have a photo of it. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am not an expert, but in the categories containing police and army officers photos, it is very likely to find photos of the Helwan pistol. Please consider the comment below, i have wrote it in another discussion.--Ashashyou (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. What if you find a single file and you are sure it is part of a big serial or sequence? Leaving the file "floating" might cause it to be "buried". I think putting a category for single files, if other files are "highly expected to be present (burried) or to come", is beneficial. This allows linking files to Wikipedia pages in all languages, plus linking them on wikidata. This would help future file to be categorized more easily, plus helping writers in all languages to reach file to add them on the related pages in an easier way. I think "justified" over categorization makes sense than undercategorisation. I assume that there is a huge amount of uncategorized photos on commons. I think people uploading new media are likely to categorize their media if they found a category already present when searching for it. I very frequently meet uncategorized media or "mal-categorized" in Arabic or other languages because the uploader do not know how to categorize or do not know "What would seem to be the proper category". I am sure you and other commons colleagues meet this issue alot. This is a big issue that i advice you to carry it to other admins to discuss, especially with the growing number of uncategorised media. Seems that this point needs to be revised and handled by some way, for example holding the single-filed category for 5 years then delete if no second file added or by any other way. Like the "nucleus" of articles on Wikipedias. My personal perception of commons that it should carry a category for all things known to humanity. regards.--Ashashyou (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ashashyou, if you're sure that "in the categories containing police and army officers photos, it is very likely to find photos of the Helwan pistol" please find them before we delete this cat. --E4024 (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. What if you find a single file and you are sure it is part of a big serial or sequence? Leaving the file "floating" might cause it to be "buried". I think putting a category for single files, if other files are "highly expected to be present (burried) or to come", is beneficial. This allows linking files to Wikipedia pages in all languages, plus linking them on wikidata. This would help future file to be categorized more easily, plus helping writers in all languages to reach file to add them on the related pages in an easier way. I think "justified" over categorization makes sense than undercategorisation. I assume that there is a huge amount of uncategorized photos on commons. I think people uploading new media are likely to categorize their media if they found a category already present when searching for it. I very frequently meet uncategorized media or "mal-categorized" in Arabic or other languages because the uploader do not know how to categorize or do not know "What would seem to be the proper category". I am sure you and other commons colleagues meet this issue alot. This is a big issue that i advice you to carry it to other admins to discuss, especially with the growing number of uncategorised media. Seems that this point needs to be revised and handled by some way, for example holding the single-filed category for 5 years then delete if no second file added or by any other way. Like the "nucleus" of articles on Wikipedias. My personal perception of commons that it should carry a category for all things known to humanity. regards.--Ashashyou (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am not an expert, but in the categories containing police and army officers photos, it is very likely to find photos of the Helwan pistol. Please consider the comment below, i have wrote it in another discussion.--Ashashyou (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. No valid reason to keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
This cat should be deleted. Yılmaz is both a surname and a family name and WD gets confused. E4024 (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Can't it just be a DAB then?, or just create a WD item for the name, like Bradford. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with Crouch, Swale. It's already effectively a DAB page. Let's just make it so. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Kept as a DAB category, as per Crouch, Swale, the child categories had good parent categories already. --rimshottalk 19:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Panoramio is dead. This category and the sub-cats are empty. Little point in keeping. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Requesting moving Category:Koma Station (Saitama) to Category:Koma Station, and moving Category:Kōma Station (Iwate) to Category:Kōma Station. As the signboards showing in these two stations are different, and the bar on letter O is a sufficient reason for disambiguation. But keep these categories with prefecture name may also be helpful. そらみみ (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I think those two names are sufficiently close that it's better to disambiguate them with the location. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment I want to add a distinguish template on each page, and keep Category:Koma Station (Saitama) and Category:Kōma Station (Iwate) as redirect categories. Is that OK?
- There's not much point in parenthetical disambiguation on a redirect, since they're used to catch things people or bots might put in automatically. It makes more sense to have Category:Koma Station as the disambiguation page, so that when someone puts something there accidentally, a more knowledgeable person can correct it. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see. Thank you.そらみみ (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- There's not much point in parenthetical disambiguation on a redirect, since they're used to catch things people or bots might put in automatically. It makes more sense to have Category:Koma Station as the disambiguation page, so that when someone puts something there accidentally, a more knowledgeable person can correct it. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have created Category:Koma Station as a disambiguation page.そらみみ (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, そらみみ. Category disambiguated. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Move to Category:Mutualism (biology) to avoid confusion and to match en:Mutualism (biology). Category:Mutualism can be turned into a disambiguation page or deleted. Themightyquill (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- In such cases I would never delete Category:Mutualism but I would not ask and simply change it to a disambiguation page, as the word has in fact different meanings. --Kersti (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Converted Category:Mutualism into a disambiguation page and move the other to Category:Mutualism (biology). - Themightyquill (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Currently this is a redirect to Category:Landscapes, which, according to its description, is for a certain type of image (landscape photography or painting). What's missing is a category for landscape as a theme: Category:Landscape architecture, Category:Landscape protection etc. Would Category:Landscape be the adequate place for this? Sitacuisses (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Benzoyl and Allforrous: Ping --Sitacuisses (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment In this case, Category:Landforms is the Top category ? (Comparison : Land / Sea)
But, Category:Landscapes also Category:Landscape architecture may include Bodies of water.
Sorry, There is Seas > Views of seas > Category:Seascapes.
Nature > Landscapes, It is a little vague (of concept).
"Natural scenery" and "Nature" > Landscapes, It is over-categorized. (worrisome little) --Benzoyl (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)- Category:Landforms is about Geomorphology. I'm not sure if Landscape protection fits into Geomorphology? Maybe Landscape and Landforms is rather a "see also" relation? There is a certain overlap between Category:Anthropogenic landforms and Landscape architecture. --Sitacuisses (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- So, Category:Lands ? (Category:Land)
Something upper-category is necessary. Nature is vague. --Benzoyl (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)- In order to get some more input from native English speakers, I looked at en:Landscape architecture and en:Land art which are both somewhere below en:Category:Natural environment. The equivalent at Commons is Category:Environment. What about creating Category:Landscape (environment)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitacuisses (talk • contribs) 17:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC) (UTCBenzoyl (talk))
- Agree @Sitacuisses Thanks for your researching. I agree. Category:Landscape (environment) is the nice idea. --Benzoyl (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- In order to get some more input from native English speakers, I looked at en:Landscape architecture and en:Land art which are both somewhere below en:Category:Natural environment. The equivalent at Commons is Category:Environment. What about creating Category:Landscape (environment)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitacuisses (talk • contribs) 17:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC) (UTCBenzoyl (talk))
- So, Category:Lands ? (Category:Land)
- Category:Landforms is about Geomorphology. I'm not sure if Landscape protection fits into Geomorphology? Maybe Landscape and Landforms is rather a "see also" relation? There is a certain overlap between Category:Anthropogenic landforms and Landscape architecture. --Sitacuisses (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- How about making this a disambiguation page containing both Category:Landscapes and Category:Landscape architecture? Maybe even Category:Landscape parks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 (Category:Landscape parks) - I think that a good idea. --Benzoyl (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Countryside is another candidate to be listed. --Sitacuisses (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Made Category:Landscape a disambiguation page, created Category:Landscape (environment) --Sitacuisses (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
This category does not contain categories of Taiwan by region. It contains categories for areas of Taiwan (I assume they are regions of Taiwan, but I don't know enough about Taiwan to be sure). Category should either be deleted or renamed. Auntof6 (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I created the category based on the description in the article "zh:台湾地理区划," which says that the government of the Republic of China divided into five regions by geographic location of each county and city in Taiwan. But I am not sure what you mean by "areas of Taiwan." Could you explain what you mean?--Kai3952 (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't know if the places that have subcategories in Category:Categories of Taiwan by region are officially regions, so I used the more general term "areas" instead. Maybe the term "location" would have been better. If they are regions, then they should be under Category:Regions of Taiwan because they are not by region. A category named Category:Categories of Taiwan by region would normally contain "by region" categories: see Category:Categories of Chile by region for an example. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, Category:Categories of Taiwan by region should be renamed, but I'm not sure what it should be called. If we use the term "location," I worry that this may cause misunderstanding by Taiwanese. Because they understand English in a native way(means the logic used is different from that in English speakers). There are too many examples on Wikimedia.Commons, and I often see so many weird and inscrutable "English problem." Although I live in Taiwan and I can't understand why(Education? Culture?).--Kai3952 (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't know if the places that have subcategories in Category:Categories of Taiwan by region are officially regions, so I used the more general term "areas" instead. Maybe the term "location" would have been better. If they are regions, then they should be under Category:Regions of Taiwan because they are not by region. A category named Category:Categories of Taiwan by region would normally contain "by region" categories: see Category:Categories of Chile by region for an example. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Done: empty cat. --JuTa 01:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
This category and all subcategories are made by a user, Mdd, by himself and about his own work. In my opinion it should not be a category in Commons. All can be relocated to an invisable (hidden) user category. See also my nomination for the gallery page Marcel Douwe Dekker. Hetty Pangel (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep This category is about the works of a professional artist (me), who has been working for over 25 years, and who has been in the news for more than 40 years (see also here and here). His work and media attention from local to international sources (mostly from the pre-internet era), I think, make the subject notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia and here.
- Of all the files listed in the category, subcategories and content page less then 10% is just about his own work. And most of these works (and events depicted) have been presented in secondary source. Most of the images lisetd are about 50 to 100 notable persons, their works, related subjects and/or events.
- The category and page bring order in the artists contributions and supplies the reader with some overview. Therefor, I think, it is valuable enough to keep around. -- Mdd (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)/09:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep These sorts of categories are regularly used in Wikimedia Commons. See for example these categories: Category:Sebastiaan ter Burg, Category:Elly Waterman en Category:Lodewijk Gelauff. Doesn't look like a problem. Vysotsky (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Not done: as long there is Marcel Douwe Dekker. --JuTa 02:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Meaningless category, just look at the images in this category so far. There is no commonality at all in the images here. I propose to redefine this category to include only images where a part of the automobile is visible, like File:P1000405 (4506752357).jpg. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Wait! We're about to open Category:Views from bikes. I do agree with your concerns; but they have even opened a cat for "countries"! (Did I use two exclamation marks in a day? :) --E4024 (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, my concern applies to the "... by country" subcategories as well. As it is right now, all images in Category:Views from automobiles in Iran already fit my proposal to include parts of the car.
- For Category:Views from bikes, I also suggest to only include images where you can see a part of the bike. I really don't see the point of such categories otherwise (obviously the view of a landscape is the same from a car, bus, train, walking, on horse, etc. – unless a part of the car, bus, train is shown). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I started a new discussion at the parent category because my argument applies to all vehicles, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Views from vehicles. Continue the discussion there. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Meaningless category, just look at the images in this category so far. There is no commonality at all in the images here, and dubious inclusion criteria. For example, what vehicle is File:Castell i església de Sant Andreu - amb Tona.jpg taken from? And more importantly, does it even matter? I propose to redefine this category to include only images where a part of the vehicle is visible, like File:P1000405 (4506752357).jpg. There is no point of such categories otherwise (obviously the view of a landscape is the same from a car, bus, train, walking, on horse, etc. – unless a part of the vehicle is shown). P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- @P199: its "views out of automobiles", not what is shown. as you can clearly see, it's part of Category:Views by viewpoint series, including Category:Views from mountains or Category:Views from roofs. whats the point of discussion? --W!B: (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- How would you know it is a view out of an automobile if no part of the automobile is shown? Sure, the uploader may know. But regardless, that is often not the defining characteristic of an image. In case of mountains, it is different because it is a fixed location. Someone wondering for instance what the view from Sulphur Mountain is can see that in Category:Views from Sulphur Mountain. But this doesn't work for vehicles. The view always changes. You could potentially add every image from the whole world here. Therefore if there is no limiting criteria, these categories are meaningless and impossible to manage.
- So the point of the discussion is to get consensus that a portion of the vehicle must be visible in the image to be included in these categories. (I suppose I just could have been bold, add a hat note, and weed out images without any vehicles visible, but I want to avoid unilateral action.) --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with you, P199 when it comes to automobiles, which can go anywhere, so there's nothing connecting the view with the vehicle unless the vehicle is partly included in the image. Category:Views from funiculars, on the other hand, should not have that restriction. Category:Views from watercraft and Category:Views from buses are certainly questionable. See what I mean? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, we can exclude subcategories that are very specific like funiculars and cable cars (provided that the specific funicular or cable car is identified). Their location is pretty well fixed anyway. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with you, P199 when it comes to automobiles, which can go anywhere, so there's nothing connecting the view with the vehicle unless the vehicle is partly included in the image. Category:Views from funiculars, on the other hand, should not have that restriction. Category:Views from watercraft and Category:Views from buses are certainly questionable. See what I mean? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Recently I found a problem with "Category:Views from vehicles in Taiwan." The term "vehicle" include bicycles and motorcycles. If photographer(original author) is taking a photo on a motorcycle, how do we know this photo is of "Views from vehicles" category? For example, "File:View along the road on Siluo Bridge towards Yunlin County.jpg" looks like he is standing on the road and taking pictures of Siluo Bridge, in fact, he is "sitting" on a motorcycle(motorcycle parked on the road) and using his mobile phone to take pictures. Although this way of taking photos is dangerous, and it is very common in Taiwan, especially cycling is more common. People can take photos with one hand holding a mobile phone, while the other hand controls the bicycle handlebar.--Kai3952 (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- @P199: It might make sense to come up with better names to avoid getting the same problem again. Split into Category:Views framed by vehicle interiors (or something similar) and Category:Views from cableway vehicles (including cable cars and funiculars]]. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Personally, I have no issue with the current category names. It is simpler to just add a description to the page that clarifies that a portion of the vehicle must be visible. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- @P199: It might make sense to come up with better names to avoid getting the same problem again. Split into Category:Views framed by vehicle interiors (or something similar) and Category:Views from cableway vehicles (including cable cars and funiculars]]. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. No other objections. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Should be called "Stonecutters" I think. - Alexis Jazz 01:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. --Elekes Andor (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is a categoryː stonemasons. We could use that, and delete Stonecutter, if the twoo means the same. --Elekes Andor (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- According to w:wikt:stonecutter it's a synonym, so this category can be redirected or deleted. There was one file here: File:Kőfaragó.jpg which you moved to Category:Stonemasons (and I moved it to Category:Stonemasons at work) so this category is empty now. I'll just redirect it. - Alexis Jazz 18:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- As I just noticed: Category:Stonecutters has been a redirect to Category:Stonemasons since 2011. - Alexis Jazz 18:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'd suggest deleting. We don't need a redirect from every singular form to every plural form. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary category, delete. Kürschner (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- May we have a valid argument ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: Kürschner's nomination applies to sub-categories as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I have looked into some of the subcategories: this looks like a well-filled tree of categories. While background colour may not be a very interesting piece information for an encyclopedia, it can be quite relevant for stock photo usage, for example on a web page. Commons' primary user are the Wikipedias, but we should really aim to make media findable for all potential users by giving them useful categories. Nochmal auf kurz Deutsch: Die Kategorien scheinen sinnvoll gefüllt zu sein. Während die Hintergrundfarbe für eine Enzyklopädie wohl nicht so interessant ist, sollten wir doch alle Nachnutzer bei der Suche nach Medien unterstützen. Dazu gehört z.B. auch ein Nutzungsszenario auf einer Webseite, für das die Hintergrundfarbe durchaus relevant sein kann.--rimshottalk 22:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Images by color of background --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Rimshot. Could be useful in creating collage artwork, or merely for interior design, the way that some people make bookcases based on the color of book covers, rather than the content of the books. --GRuban (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
No consensus to delete, as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Images by color of background. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary category, delete. Kürschner (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- May we have a valid argument ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this applies to all the sub-categories as well, but I've tagged a few more of them. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well that's also the problem, you see : Kürschner has tagged many categories like that, but randomly ! What's the point of behaving like that ? If one thinks categories of backgrounds are unnecessary, one discussion is enough ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this applies to all the sub-categories as well, but I've tagged a few more of them. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Strongly Against Deleting those cats. They are very useful. If you are designing something like this it is very, very useful that you can search by background color. Amada44 talk to me 09:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: For such basic image information it is absolutely worth to have categories for. Another suggestion for a useful case: Photocollages (maybe automatically created by an algorhythm) f. ex. https://cdn.trendir.com/wp-content/uploads/old/trends/2015/08/14/giant-instagram-photo-collage.jpg I'm sure that someone could find plenty more reasons why it would be helpful to find images with a specific color scheme. --Zaccarias (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Amada44 and Zaccarias. Also note that no real pro-deletion argument has been developped. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per above, for creating collage artwork, or merely for interior design, the way that some people make bookcases based on the color of book covers, rather than the content of the books. --GRuban (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem like there's consensus to delete, Kürschner. Can I close? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hallo Themightyquill! Totally outvoted - thank you! -- Kürschner (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem like there's consensus to delete, Kürschner. Can I close? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
No consensus to delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Should be Category:FETA (festival). I moved it but met resistance. Therefore we're here taking your time. E4024 (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Am I having dejavu or did we already have this discussion with another "festiwal" category? Anyway, obvious move to Category:FETA (festival). Category names should be in English, unless it's a formal name. Obviously, the disambiguation part of the name is not part of the formal name. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with E4024 and Themightyquill: use the English spelling. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Auntof, please move it yourself, this time. I have been a bad kid in the past and now everything I do is looked at with microscope. Don't let me begin "edit wars". :) Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- YES, this is the name of Polish festival, but I agree that all Category names here should be in English - my earlier resistance was misplaced, sorry for confusion.
- The name should be "FETA (festival)" as a to distinguish to e.g. FETA (cheese) or simply "FETA Festival" - please decide which is better. --Jasc PL (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Did I just hear a "sorry"? Oh, God exists... :) --E4024 (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:FETA (festival). Thanks for your cooperation, Jasc PL! - Themightyquill (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Is Category:Over-The-Beach redundant with Category:Beach assault? Themightyquill (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- If u want u can rename it calestine over the beach operations.--Sanandros (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sanandros: Category:Clandestine over-the-beach operations? That works for me. It could then go in Category:Clandestine operations, though that category requires some cleaning up... - Themightyquill (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Clandestine over-the-beach operations. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete as too redundant with Category:Cuisine of Middle Europe, and without the benefit of a clear category tree for parentage. Themightyquill (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:Cuisine of Poland by region. Themightyquill (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Upmerged content and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I opened this cat because there was Category:Chief editor of the Tagesschau (ARD); now I doubt we need this. Maybe we should upmerge it to Newspaper editors. E4024 (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. I imagine most items in Category:Newspaper editors are chief editors anyway. It makes more sense to subdivide by country than by specific rank. -Themightyquill (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
No objective criteria for what makes some art propagandistic or not. No category tree for this to fit into. Upmerge to Category:Saddam Hussein in art Themightyquill (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
This isn't a reputable songwriter, this category makes it seem this way. It's a private person that doesn't need a own category. CennoxX (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I would delete both the cat and the file; it smells self promotion. File:Anil Nayak.JPG is also the same person? --E4024 (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Can we move the sub-categories to the format Category:Plays from X? It matches with the sub-categories Category:Books by country & Category:Poetry by country, and avoids any confusion about whether the adjective (e.g. "Spanish", "French", "German" etc) refers to the country or the language. Themightyquill (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved all sub-categories accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Is this a useful category, over Category:Workers? Keep Category:Hotel staff, Category:Shop staff, Category:Sports staff, Category:Staff only signs, Category:Rail transport staff, Category:Virginia state parks personnel but the rest should be merged or renamed:
- Category:Staff - Upmerge to Category:Workers
- Category:Staff in Japan - Upmerge to Category:Workers in Japan
- Category:Two staff - Rename to Category:Two workers
- Category:Staff in art - Upmerge to Category:Workers in art
- Category:Staff with caps - Rename to Category:Workers with caps or delete.
- Category:Crouching staff - Rename to Category:Crouching workers (to match Category:Sitting workers) or perhaps Category:People crouching at work and Category:People sitting at work ?
- Category:Female staff - Rename to Category:Female workers or delete.
- Category:Staff with mascots & Category:Staff supporting mascots - Merge into Category:Mascot support staff
- Category:Sleeping staff - Rename Category:Sleeping workers (or perhaps Category:People sleeping at work?)
Themightyquill (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agree I have no objection. I think Workers = staff, too. Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- We also have various categories for employees that could be organized with relation to these (see this search). Maybe employees directly under workers? Workers would not be under staff (because not all jobs are staff-type jobs), nor under employees (because not all workers are working for someone else). --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- There's no Category:Employees but the top level category (so far) seems to be Category:Employees of companies, and certainly not all workers work for companies. I'm fine with putting Category:Employees of companies under Category:Workers as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Workers as above. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
People of Argentina? Shall we open cats for other people of Argentina who take pics? E4024 (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- When i changed the Categories, these Pictures where tagged with "Rodrigo" and "Paredes", so i created the Category "Rodrigo Paredes". The information i got from the Pictures is that the Photographer and the People are from Argentina. Maybe it was not the best choice. Obviously "Photographers from Argentina" would be better.--Hiddenhauser (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Bienvenido a la página personal de Rodrigo Paredes": https://users.dcc.uchile.cl/~raparede/ --E4024 (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- That is the wrong Rodrigo Paredes. Here ist the right one: https://www.flickr.com/people/rodrigoparedes/. Heimatort (Translated Hometown): Buenos Aires, Land Argentinia. But to make a long story short, change it in any way you like it better.--Hiddenhauser (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Bienvenido a la página personal de Rodrigo Paredes": https://users.dcc.uchile.cl/~raparede/ --E4024 (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please note that we also have a Category:Files transferred from Flickr user rodrigoparedes and none of the two are "hidden" categories. --E4024 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please look at File:Rodrigo Paredes (21076396264).jpg. It is about a bridge, a sign but it only appears under the above two "cats". I think we should find substitutes to those cats; bridges in the US should be better categorized. (Take this last paragraph as a parenthesis that I added to show where Rodrigo has taken us.) --E4024 (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Seemingly non-notable photographer. Move everything to Category:Files transferred from Flickr user rodrigoparedes and delete Category:Rodrigo Paredes. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Hiddenhauser: Is everything in this cat from the photographer's Flickr feed? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Sorry, i cant answer this question, because it is to long ago.--Hiddenhauser (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Hiddenhauser: Thank you. Everything in this cat appears to be from the photographer's Flickr feed. I support the move proposed by Themightyquill upon closing of this discussion. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: I agree.--Hiddenhauser (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Hiddenhauser: Thank you. Everything in this cat appears to be from the photographer's Flickr feed. I support the move proposed by Themightyquill upon closing of this discussion. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Sorry, i cant answer this question, because it is to long ago.--Hiddenhauser (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Hiddenhauser: Is everything in this cat from the photographer's Flickr feed? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @E4024: I categorized that photo into Category:Bridges in Chicago. I see you already added a category redirect while this discussion was in progress. Why? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think the correct question is this one: Why did you wait for 23 days to participate in this discussion? OTOH did you read the discussion carefully? If so, why did you touch my correct edit? --E4024 (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- @E4024: I did not notice this discussion until shortly before I posted to it. Why did you not notify me of it? You should know from past interactions that I have uploaded the work of this photographer. Yes, I read the discussion carefully. It has not concluded, therefore your edit was not yet correct. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @E4024: "Please do not make major changes to this category or remove this notice until the discussion has been closed" in {{Category for discussion}} at the top of the cat is quite clear. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yessir. --E4024 (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think the correct question is this one: Why did you wait for 23 days to participate in this discussion? OTOH did you read the discussion carefully? If so, why did you touch my correct edit? --E4024 (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Seemingly non-notable photographer. Move everything to Category:Files transferred from Flickr user rodrigoparedes and delete Category:Rodrigo Paredes. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Done: Move everything to Category:Files transferred from Flickr user rodrigoparedes and delete Category:Rodrigo Paredes as per Themightyquill. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I believe this category shouldn't be categorized under any winter category. I recently removed all "Snow in..." categories from winter categories. I removed this one from Category:Winter in Taiwan, but User:Kai3952 objected, saying that it snows only in winter in Taiwan, and asking for more of a consensus. Therefore I am bringing it here for discussion. Here are my reasons for thinking that this category (as well as any "snow in" category) shouldn't be categorized under winter:
- It might be that snow falls in Taiwan only in winter. However, snow as a substance is separate from the action of snow falling. Snow could fall at the end of winter and still be on the ground at the beginning of spring.
- Snow might have been brought to Taiwan at any time of year from somewhere else. People do that for various reasons, such as for people to play in or to provide enrichment for zoo animals.
- Snow might have been artificially created at any time of year, such as for a ski slope or something else.
Even if no existing files show snow in Taiwan outside of winter, and even if the things I mentioned have never happened in Taiwan, the Category:Snow in Taiwan is where they would go if they did. We need to consider not only what we currently have in the category, but what the category is able to contain. To explain that thinking using a different area, think of the category for Presidents of the United States: all of them so far have been men, but we don't put that category under men of the United States because they aren't required to be men.
There are also differences about exactly when seasons start and end, so categorizing anything by season is problematic. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: :No, what I see is that "you opposed Taiwan," and thus I disagree with what you said. In particular, you are constantly bothering me. As I said previously, I agree with what Odysseus1479 and Nilfanion said, but you didn't understand what I "meant". If you don't want to improve your attitude, then please do not make "unreasonable move." For example, what you are doing now is forcing me. I hope you stop.--Kai3952 (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Look up here, that what you are talking about is "snowing" and "snow itself." If it is because of winter category, then I don't understand why "Snow in Taiwan" category needs to be deleted? Also, you accused me of: "User:Kai3952 objected, saying that it snows only in winter in Taiwan." I have to remind you that I said "I know it only snow in winter", and not "it snows only in winter in Taiwan." "I know it only snow in winter" means exactly that: "As far as I know, when the cold weather comes(including cold spells and cold waves), it will snowing in some higher places in Taiwan. This weather phenomenon usually occurs in winter." Perhaps I should not say "I know it only snow in winter", I should say "Taiwan in the past century, most of snowing happened in winter." For this reason, and thus you want to delete "Snow in Taiwan" category?--Kai3952 (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- I do not want to delete Category:Snow in Taiwan. This is "categories for discussion", not "categories for deletion". What I want to do is take the winter category off of Category:Snow in Taiwan: the same change I did before, which you reverted. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. Categorize weather by weather, not by time of year. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Although I opened this CfD, I am closing it because the issue has been resolved (through actions of others, not me). Not only is the winter category no longer on Category:Snow in Taiwan, that winter category has been deleted.--Auntof6 (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
This category should probably be deleted along with its year subcategories. They contain only subcategories of Category:Wayside shrines by year (which should, of course, not be deleted). As I wrote on Category talk:Wayside shrines, it is (despite the same name part shrine) not certain that Category:Wayside shrines should be a subcategory of Category:Shrines at all. Leit (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Self created category deleted.--Leit (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Models (and mock-ups) are considered sculptural works and are, therefore, eligible for copyright protection. In my opinion, all theses pictures should be deleted, due to copyright violation. Jebulon (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Very likely correct, Jebulon, but so long as we have the pictures, we should keep the category as it is. Can you nominated the pictures for deletion? You can turn on "VisualFileChange" under Preferences > Gadgets > Maintenance tools in order to nominate them all in one batch, if you'd like. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Closing: After several months, files don't appear nominated for deletion, so keep category for now. @Jebulon: Please deal with the files before nominating a populated category for deletion. You might also want to address files in similar categories (see subcats of Category:Models of automobiles by scale). --Auntof6 (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't at least part of this category name be in English? It translates to "Hemmesjö old church bell tower". At least the "bell tower" part should probably be in English, possibly more. Auntof6 (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Hemmesjö gamla kyrka bell tower. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't at least part of this category name be in English? It translates to "Berga church bell tower". At least the "bell tower" part should probably be in English, possibly more. Auntof6 (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Bell tower of Berga kyrk, Kalmar län. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't at least part of this category name be in English? It translates to "Arby church bell tower". At least the "bell tower" part should probably be in English, possibly more. Auntof6 (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Of course the category can be changed to English text.Mvh Bernt Fransson
Moved to Category:Arby kyrka bell tower. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
These are no specific "biomedical research robots" but instead industrial robots installed in a bio laboratory. I strongly doubt the existence of special "biomedical research robots" at all.
Proposal: List the files in Category:Industrial robots and also in Category:Laboratory automation and delete this category. Zaccarias (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
No opposition. Upmerged images and deleted as suggested. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Short story: Category:Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1964 is where all of these stamps are actually located. Russia (i.e. RSFSR) had no postal service publishing stamps outside of the Soviet Union control. Gone Postal (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted in favour of Category:Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1964. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
If he was not "assassinated" (I mean killed) then the cat title sounds wrong. I guess this must be changed. E4024 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Assassination attempt on Ali Khamenei as per peers and en:Assassination attempt on Ali Khamenei. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Assassination attempt on Ali Khamenei. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Propose merging film personality categories to categories for film people. Film doesn't have personalities like radio and TV do. Besides that, the only thing under these categories (at least when I looked just now) is film screenwriters, which is also under film people. Auntof6 (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course film has personalities like television and radio does. Actors, writers, producers, etc. Perhaps you're alluding to the way the term "personality" is used in film and radio to refer to people who aren't playing a role, but being themselves, like hosts, but there indeed those in film, like Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino, and there's no reason that people who act can't be thought of as personalities.In addition, I created the category Film personalities when I created the subcat Category:Film screenwriters from the United States. Since I used the cat Television screenwriters from the United States as an example, or template, I created the same hierarchical category path for the film one, and that included this one. Nightscream (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete I definitely agree with Auntof6 on this one. I've never heard the term before, and google tells me that outside of Bollywood, it's basically never used. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
No expansion in months (it only contained Category:Film screenwriters by country. No examples of common usage. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Apparently this two categories address the same building --RobertLechner (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Support Merge to Category:Caldwell Tower, which most closely matches its name as listed building. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Unless there is solid evidence and content for the former castle (which the WP article only suggest that there may have been), there is no point in having separate cats, agree with Rodhullandemu. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I moved the images to Category:Caldwell Tower and turned Category:Caldwell Castle into a disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
This category is a complete misnomer and should be deleted (not all of the pics, although most of them do have no obvious encyclopaedic significance). Shown are (more or less cute) pictures, alas none of them in a “Buddha position” -- assuming this to be a meditative human pose with legs folded, which per se is difficult for humans to endure and impossible for felines to adapt. Thus: move and delete. Zenwort (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm guessing the intended reference is Budai, not Buddha. - Jmabel ! talk 19:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- A google search tells me that a lot of people have made the same mistake. Category:Cats sitting erect with legs wide open ? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'd support Themightyquill suggestion.--Sanandros (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- A google search tells me that a lot of people have made the same mistake. Category:Cats sitting erect with legs wide open ? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Cats sitting erect with legs wide open. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
This category isn't needed. It groups counties by the region of "the Americas": that is essentially an entire hemisphere, and it isn't meaningful to group counties by such a large area. The only thing in this category is Category:Counties in North America. Even if there were more in the category, grouping by continent is a big enough scope. Auntof6 (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed, unless we want to create Category:Counties of Eurasia too. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand the scope of this category. As it is written it is likely a duplicate of the category Byzantine Museum of Kastoria, that also contains images. In case it was referring to exhibits I created the category Icons in Kastoria Byzantine Museum, that is more specific. C messier (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Some of the images of icons that were in the category include the description "image from the Byzantine Museum," which might have been the source of confusion. It doesn't look like the museum has published any of these images itself, so I don't think we have a place for Category:Images from Byzantine Museum, Kastoria, West Macedonia, Greece (which sounds like something in Category:Images by source. I'd suggest deletion, unless someone knows better. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Non notable photographer, If the community decides deletion I would be more than happy to move all images to "Files uploaded by WPPilot" as well as moving their inside cats to that new name. –Davey2010Talk 00:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Another attack. I would be happy to edit out personal info, others that are featured as I have been have Cats. My work is featured on thousands of publications around the world --Don (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is no attack in my rationale, So what you're still not notable. –Davey2010Talk 01:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- According to you. I have posted upon a Bureaucrats page and I am quite sure she will respond. I suggest you take a moment and google my name, try clicking on the Image tabs. Many photographers here have there own Cat. If something needs to be changed on it fine, but I did not make the template. --Don (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Those google results mean absolutely nothing, You did make the template and I'm beyond gobsmacked you could deny something that is so blatantly obvious, Your plan at fooling everyone is not working at all. –Davey2010Talk 01:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- According to you. I have posted upon a Bureaucrats page and I am quite sure she will respond. I suggest you take a moment and google my name, try clicking on the Image tabs. Many photographers here have there own Cat. If something needs to be changed on it fine, but I did not make the template. --Don (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is no attack in my rationale, So what you're still not notable. –Davey2010Talk 01:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I have removed anything other then photographer attribution information thus making your request moot. --Don (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- The rationale provided is not even close to moot and you removing things achieves precisely nothing, I have no interest in taking this CFD up with our squabbles so I shall discontinue with the replies, If editors believe this should be deleted with my other option being preferred then I will carry that through but if editors believe this is absolutely fine then I'd be fine with that too. –Davey2010Talk 01:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Please read Commons:User-specific_galleries,_templates_and_categories#Categories and see examples like Category:Jonatan Svensson Glad and Creator:Jonatan Svensson Glad. Jee 02:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- The above editor has been canvassed by WPPilot, If any neutral editor or admin believes this is fine then I'll be more than happy to close, Many thanks. –Davey2010Talk 02:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Kept - Withdrawn as this wasn't self promotion, No valid reason for deletion. –Davey2010Talk 03:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Divination bowls? E4024 (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes it is used in traditional medicine in Egypt and some countries in MENA--Ashashyou (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm moving it to English. --E4024 (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Divination bowls. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Empty category Jamez42 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Don't nominate it for being empty when you just emptied/blanked it yourself. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: What's the point of keeping a category with only one file whose person isn't clearly visible in the picture and hasn't occupied a public office? It seems more suitable for the category Nueva Visión para mi País. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. This person is not notable, and we're unlikely to get many more photos. The one existing photo might well be nominated for deletion, since it includes a copyrighted image. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Islamic children? E4024 (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- That is indeed awkward. Move to Category:Muslim children. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I emptied this Islamophobic cat and hope it will be deleted. Please see Category talk:Muslim boys. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Done: by Túrelio. --ℯxplicit 00:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
This category is about the same building as Category:Huis de Pinto. "Huis De Pinto" would be the most correct name (with capital "D" because it is named after the family name De Pinto). See also the article titles in en-, fr- & nl- language versions of Wikipedia and the descriptions in the Wikidata-item. Paulbe (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Paulbe: Are you okay with leaving a redirect? It seems possible that someone might look for it under "De Pinto", no? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
No comment in over a year, closing and leaving redirect. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
First and foremost, created by a user with negative credentials. Second, incorrect capitalization of “Commons”. Third, such category could be populated with template(s) had it been warranted, but I see no merit to keep stewards-related accountability on Commons systematically. In any case, the current category should be wiped out because its content originated from an unreliable source affiliated with one of the most obnoxious LTA in Wikimedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, simply change it to Category:Globally locked Commons users, an editor's standing should be irrelevant to the content they create if the content is good... And as much as I hate it when admins "import blocks" as a similar category exists over at Dutch Wikipedia that uses a neologism "gelockte" (despite there being a Dutch word, "vergrendeld"), however global locks today are de facto global bans and that includes and extends to Wikimedia Commons (local project autonomy is a myth), and this could also be a handy maintenance category for those interested in seeing which cross-wiki vandals are and aren't locked here, although I don't think that if an editor in good standing on Wikimedia Commons is globally locked that that lock should be locally enforced, a category to maintain which accounts have and haven't been locked could be handy, and why not simply add this category automatically to Template:locked global account? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Incnis Mrsi: A) Is there actually a rule that we should remove content, regardless of the quality, because it was added by a blocked user? B) I don't personally care if this category exists, but I'll note that, as well as Wikipedia NL, there are similar categories at Spanish and Portuguese wikipedias and meta-wiki. I've added wikidata to connect it. But that doesn't mean we need to keep it. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep – Same as the above. This also happens to be a useful category. If a banned/blocked user ends up creating an useful, uncontroversial page, that page should be kept, regardless of the status of its creator. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment By principle this category can be useful, but it has a big problem. At moment there's 52 users in the category. Number of locked users is much bigger. Who will maintain the category? Taivo (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Only add users who had local userpage, significant amount of edits and had interacted significantly with others. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
kept, but the category must be renamed, as Donald Trung pointed out: "Commons" must be capitalized. Taivo (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Thierry80 would like to discuss his bulk renaming of subcats of Category:Zoo d'Amiens creating dupe categories replacing biological taxon names by French names and blanking the previously existing cats. Achim (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- While it's OK for the name of the zoo to be in French (because that's it's official name), policy says that the animal names should be either in English or the Latin scientific names (preferred because the Latin is more precise). --Auntof6 (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Should be in Latin, like in any other zoo (including the categories not created by myself). --Veliensis (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Leave the zoo name, but use latin for animals to match with parent categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Since nobody did contradict, I am going to rename the categories gradually. --Veliensis (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
This appears to have been done, all plant and animal names are Latin. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Pictures show the wrong building! 195.200.70.38 06:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Die Bilder zeigen das Gebäude in der Hans-Mielich-Straße (gehört ebenfalls dem BV Giesing), nicht, wie angegeben, das im Bereich Agilolfinger Platz - Gerhardstr. - Teutoburger Str. 195.200.70.38 06:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Bei Streetview sieht es schon richtig aus. Welche Hausnummer in Mieliech-Straße soll das sein? --rimshottalk 08:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Kept, no reply after more than two years. --rimshottalk 23:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Driving training redundant with Category:Driver's education ? I'm guessing it might refer specifically to in-vehicle education, but I'm not sure that merits sub-category. Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- In my mind, Category:Driving training encompasses advanced or specialized training, while Category:Driver's education includes basic or remedial training. The contents appear to uphold this at least loosely. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- @BMacZero: That would be reasonable. Can we move Category:Driver training to Category:Specialized driver training, as a sub-category of Category:Driver's education? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: That sounds fine to me. It might be more "correct" for them to be sibling categories because they are actually mutually exclusive, but your suggestion is much more intuitive for users navigating the tree. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- @BMacZero: That would be reasonable. Can we move Category:Driver training to Category:Specialized driver training, as a sub-category of Category:Driver's education? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Specialized driving training. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Being a subcategory of Category:Orford Ness I would guess that this category is a duplication of Category:Orfordness Lighthouse. Anyhow as it currently stands this category has no content apart from a subcategory for another Lighthouse in Gibraltor. Oxyman (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Oxyman: Should we just delete it? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I guess so, currently it just confuses the category structure. Oxyman (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
This should be merged into Category:Births in Madrid, IMHO. E4024 (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- They have been moved from "People of Madrid", a category that lumped together "random people in the streets of Madrid", "folchlorical representations of anonymous Madrilenian people", "celebrities born in Madrid", "random selfies" and who knows what else, although "officially" was apparently aimed to "the bornies". It's probably merge-able with "Births in Madrid" (didn't notice) (nevertheless I'd like to say I would not feel comfortable moving pics of people to a Category: called "Births in Madrid", specially if they are alive, since I'm not going to check every human being formerly hosted in "Category:People of Madrid" (supposedly-born-in-Madrid), and source if they were born in Madrid or not (something I could not give a bigger sh** about). The not-that-explicit "From Madrid" formulation is more comfy. Anyway, feel everyone free to move the images in this not-very-useful-category to wherever you think it's better, and give it the name you prefer. As far as I'm concerned you could even delete "People from Madrid" and "Births in Madrid", both of them. strakhov (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, in Category:Births in Madrid and Category:Deaths in Madrid I'd categorize images of people being born in Madrid and dying in Madrid. I mean, this is for me a death in Madrid: Category:Engravings of the death of Alfonso XII of Spain. On the contrary, this one (File:Retrato de Alfonso XII con uniforme de gala (Palacio de Aranjuez).jpg) (in fact it isn't even Category:Madrid but Category:Aranjuez) is not a "death" but a "person". So it may be better something like "People born in Madrid" and "People (who?) died in Madrid". strakhov (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- So, first option, I'd move this category to Category:People born in Madrid, I'd reserve Category:Births in Madrid for little-babies-being-born-in-this-city and Category:Deaths in Madrid for people dying in Madrid (and related events: funerals, etc). And I would never create a category in Commons for people who just happened to die in Madrid.
- If not possible because the "category tree" of Births and Deaths is too much established, it's ok for me merging this one with "Births in Madrid", although hypothetical subcats such as "Paintings of births in Madrid, "Engravings of births in Madrid" (Category:Engravings of people from Madrid) or "Births in Madrid in art" would be too much confusing. strakhov (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Merged. strakhov (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Löschen: Leere Kategorie, Duplikat zu "Category:Herzogstraße 15–19" F. Riedelio (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 07:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Löschen: Leere Kategorie, Duplikat zu "Category:Herzogstraße 15 – 19" F. Riedelio (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 07:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Löschen: Leere Kategorie, Duplikat zu "Category:Herzogstraße 15 - 19 (Gimmeldingen)" F. Riedelio (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep An sich gefällt mir dieser Name besser als der komplizierte Vorschlag "Herzogstraße 15-19, Herzogshof (Gimmeldingen)". Wenn das Gebäude unter dem Namen bekannt ist, warum dann die Adresse angeben, das machen wir eigentlich nur bei anonymen Gebäuden. --rimshottalk 07:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Es geht hier nicht um den Namen. Es handelt sich um eine leere Kategorie, die gelöscht werden sollte.
- -- F. Riedelio • Diskussion • ✉ 19:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ich würde es als Weiterleitung erhalten, sobald klar ist, wie der Kategoriename in Zukunft heißen soll. Ich hätte mir auch den umgekehrten Weg, d.h., diese Kategorie behalten und die andere löschen, vorstellen können. Die Diskussion ist auf der CFD zur anderen Kategorie). --rimshottalk 19:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Es geht hier nicht um den Namen. Es handelt sich um eine leere Kategorie, die gelöscht werden sollte.
Done: Redirected to the new category name. --rimshottalk 22:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Kategorie umbenennen in "Herzogstraße 15-19, Herzogshof (Gimmeldingen)". F. Riedelio (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Warum so kompliziert? Die vorhandene Kategorie Category:Herzogshof (Gimmeldingen) ist doch vermutlich auch ohne Adressangabe eindeutig. --rimshottalk 07:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Der Wunsch zur Umbenennung hat folgende Gründe:
- Gebäudenamen (Bezeichnungen gemäß Liste der Kulturdenkmäler, z.B. Herzogshof) sind nicht immer eindeutig. Es kann z.B. mehrere Herzogshöfe geben.
- Die Adresse (Straße, Hausnummer, Ort) verweist eindeutig auf das Objekt und wird eher selten geändert.
- Die beiden Leerzeichen vor und nach dem Halbgeviertstrich sind gemäß Verwendung der Hausnummer fehlerhaft (zu viel).
- Letzter Grund ist die einheitliche Bezeichnung von Kategorien zur besseren Übersicht.
- -- F. Riedelio • Diskussion • ✉ 19:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ich habe da keine Ortskenntnis, aber es scheint nicht die berühmteste Sehenswürdigkeit von Gimmeldingen zu sein, jedenfalls finde ich im Netz nicht viel dazu. Von daher ist vielleicht wirklich die Adresse der günstigere Kategoriename, wenn es nur Insider unter dem Namen Herzogshof kennen. Dann würde ich aber auch den kompakteren Kategorienamen "Herzogstraße 15-19 (Gimmeldingen)" vorziehen. Die Bezeichnung Herzogshof sollte dann in der Beschreibung auftauchen, damit es in der Suche so auffindbar ist. --rimshottalk 19:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ich würde auch den Kategorienamen „Herzogstraße 15-19 (Gimmeldingen)“ bevorzugen; auch wegen der Einheitlichkeit mit den Kategorien von Kulturdenkmälern von diesem und anderer Orte. Den Zusatz „Herzogshof“ habe ich wegen des ursprünglichen Kategorienamens und wegen der Suche vorgeschlagen. Wünschenswert wäre eine Syntax zur Benennung von Kategorien. Diese habe ich leider nicht gefunden.
- -- F. Riedelio • Diskussion • ✉ 11:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Die offiziellen Regeln zu Kategorienamen sind sehr überschaubar. In der Regel läuft es darauf hinaus, zu schauen, wie es in ähnlichen Bereichen gehandhabt wurde. Wenn man unsicher ist, oder nicht leicht behebbare Inkonsistenzen auffallen, ist der richtige Weg der zum CFD. --rimshottalk 22:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ich habe da keine Ortskenntnis, aber es scheint nicht die berühmteste Sehenswürdigkeit von Gimmeldingen zu sein, jedenfalls finde ich im Netz nicht viel dazu. Von daher ist vielleicht wirklich die Adresse der günstigere Kategoriename, wenn es nur Insider unter dem Namen Herzogshof kennen. Dann würde ich aber auch den kompakteren Kategorienamen "Herzogstraße 15-19 (Gimmeldingen)" vorziehen. Die Bezeichnung Herzogshof sollte dann in der Beschreibung auftauchen, damit es in der Suche so auffindbar ist. --rimshottalk 19:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Der Wunsch zur Umbenennung hat folgende Gründe:
Done: Moved to Category:Herzogstraße 15-19 (Gimmeldingen), as per discussion. --rimshottalk 22:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Foutief aangemaakt. Hoe kan deze verwijderd worden? HT-boek (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, accidental creation. --rimshottalk 08:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Find a better title please. E4024 (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Traditional games of Azerbaijan in Category:Traditional games ? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Traditional games of Azerbaijan. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Archival categorization is different that commons categorization. Upmerge to Category:Alexander Suvorov Themightyquill (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- The current name is indeed unsuitable. I suppose the proper name for this category is Category:Caricatures of Alexander Suvorov, taking into account its content.--Russian Rocky (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- That works for me. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Caricatures of Alexander Suvorov. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Seems likely to lead to confusion with Category:Foundations (organizations). English wikipedia is at en:Category:Foundations (buildings and structures), and I would suggest we do the same Category:Foundations (buildings and structures) or maybe just Category:Foundations (structures) or Category:Foundations (construction). Themightyquill (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- I support clarifying and making this a disambiguation cat. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. JopkeB (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Foundations (architecture) by Iketsi in March 2021. I've turned it into a disambiguation page. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Wayside crosses in Romania. ro:Troiță is wikidata linked to en:Wayside cross. Leave a redirect though. Themightyquill (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Wayside crosses in Romania by Renata3 in July 2020. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Not the right identification - see talk page Golan's mom (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- @אמא של גולן: You can remove any photos from the category if they don't belong there, and rename any incorrectly named photos. If we have no photos of Ulrika Jonsson, this category will be deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Ulricha Johnson by Disembodied Soul in December 2020. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
about the same building as Category:De Pinto House. "Huis De Pinto" would be the most correct name (with capital "D" because it is named after the family name De Pinto). See also the article titles in en-, fr- & nl- language versions of Wikipedia and the descriptions in the Wikidata-item. Paulbe (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- If it's at en:Huis de Pinto at English wikipedia, I see no reason to force a translation here. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Rudolphous redirected Category:De Pinto House to Category:Huis de Pinto in June 2018. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I open this to discussion among native speakers and beg leave. Subcats are Category:Hospital "corpsmen" by war and Category:Female hospital "corpsmen" of the United States Navy. Men-man? Female men? Food for discussion. E4024 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Your constant pedantic CFD nominations are wearing on me and I'd like to just close this immediately as a nonsense nomination, but since it's opened for discussion, I'm going to use the opportunity to suggest a move to Category:Hospital corpsmen as standard plural form. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:Hospital corpsmen (a year ago). Apparently, female corpsmen are also called corpsman. --rimshottalk 13:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The category description at Category:Tea houses is "Small buildings for tea ceremonies" which I would assume to mean a building for private use, rather than a place that serves tea to the public. Correct? This, however, doesn't match en:Tea houses or common usage of the term in English, and as a result, the category is filled with places to buy a cup of tea (aka Category:Tea rooms). I would suggest a move to Category:Tea ceremony houses or Category:Tea ceremony buildings. Category:Tea houses could either replace Category:Tea rooms or be used as a disambiguation page. Themightyquill (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: (and others!) I agree that there should be one term for "Small buildings for tea ceremonies". Category:Theekoepels is in use for this purpose, but that is a Dutch word, meaning Tea dome. There is an English translation on that side: tea house gazebos. I'd rather would suggest Tea house (gazebos) or Tea house (pavilions). Because: in the Netherlands there is no such thing as a 'tea ceremony' (as there is in England or Russia), we just drink a cup of tea. Sometimes, if you are lucky to have one in the garden, in a 'theekoepel' or 'theehuisje' (little tea house or gazebos) and then there is no ceremony as well. Perhaps this is the case for other cultures as well.
- Whatever the new term will be for the private buildings, I think we should follow the English Wikipedia for the commercial tea buildings, to preserve unity: keep Tea houses and make a redirect for Tea rooms.
- JopkeB (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: (and others) Since in over a year there was no reaction, I would suggest as a conclusion:
- Category:Tea houses wil stay.
- The definition of Category:Tea houses will be: "Commercial establishments which primarily serve tea and other light refreshments".
- There will be a redirect from Category:Tea rooms to Category:Tea houses. The files and (many) subcategories in Category:Tea rooms will be transferred to Category:Tea houses. Question: should the names of the subcategories be changed as well? (As far as I'm concerned they can stay.)
- Category:Theekoepels will be redirected to the new Category:Garden tea houses
(gazebos). I prefer 'gazebos' because that is indeed small; at least in Dutch a "pavillion" might be a big building as well, for instance for receptions or exhibitions, so "pavillion" might lead to confusion). The subcategories and files in Category:Theekoepels will be transferred to Category:Garden tea houses(gazebos). The description might be "Small private garden buildings for drinking tea, for instance during tea ceremonies." IMPLEMENTED, see Category:Garden tea houses. JopkeB (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC) - All files and subcategories of Category:Tea houses (inlcuding the at that time former Category:Tea rooms) should be checked if they still have the correct (parent) category/-ies.
JopkeB (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- I now see that gazebos are open structures; Theekoepels are closed, so my conclusion 4 is not right. I changed it. JopkeB (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Conclusions: see above. Implemented conform conclusions. The names of the subcategories have been kept, except when there were subcategories for one country in Tea houses as wel as in Tea rooms. JopkeB (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Category:Municipal districts in Alberta seems redundant with Category:Municipal districts and counties in Alberta. Most are named county, but en:Category:Municipal districts in Alberta and en:List of municipal districts in Alberta suggest they are all, officially, municipal districts. I'm not sure which is the best way to go. Themightyquill (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Upmerge into older category. They are the same thing. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed; it’s only a matter of nomenclature. Note that many of our category names here omit “County”, “M.D.” or whatever anyway. (There’s another old discussion about that somewhere, whether or not they should be made consistent.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Holy hell this is still open? A 2+ year "discussion" with no opposition? Themightyquill and Odysseus1479, how do you get something like this closed here? Ribbet32 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Ribbet32: If they are redundant, are you okay with a merger to Category:Municipal districts in Alberta which matches the wikipedia articles and fits in Category:Districts of Canada instead of Category:Countries of Canada? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Themightyquill Sounds good Ribbet32 (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Ribbet32: If they are redundant, are you okay with a merger to Category:Municipal districts in Alberta which matches the wikipedia articles and fits in Category:Districts of Canada instead of Category:Countries of Canada? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Holy hell this is still open? A 2+ year "discussion" with no opposition? Themightyquill and Odysseus1479, how do you get something like this closed here? Ribbet32 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Municipal districts in Alberta Themightyquill (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Hotel San Domenico redundant with Category:Hotel San Domenico (Taormina)? Themightyquill (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Probably we should delete category:Hotel San Domenico (Taormina) instead. Taivo (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't care too much, though google tells me there are other Hotel San Domenicos in the world. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- I would suggest that we keep Category:Hotel San Domenico (Taormina) for the hotel in Taormina: that is a clear name; the files of the other category will need to be transferred to this one. We can keep Category:Hotel San Domenico for now as a redirect, so that it might be a DAB (Disambiguous page) or parent category in the future. --JopkeB (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Hotel San Domenico (Taormina). -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I oppose the move of Category:Bánh bao to Category:Baozi (suggested by Newone), for exactly the same reasons as the ones in en:Talk:Bánh bao#Bánh bao vs. baozi. --Comedora (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm unsure where this move suggestion is. Can we close this if there is nobody proposing a move here? – BMacZero (🗩) 04:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Categories are not merged per en:Talk:Bánh bao Estopedist1 (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a thing called "Taunus" that things get named after. Taunus is a low mountain range in Germany. We could either delete this category or recategorise to the belonging subcategories. Allo002 (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- What's wrong with keeping this? There are several districts in Germany named in part for the range: those could be added. There's also an asteroid, although I don't see any media for it here. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure a village that has its location (a mountain range) in its name qualifies as being "named after" the mountains any more than the Swiss Alps are "named after" Switerland. But I don't see a problem with this category, aside from the fact that it only has one sub-category. It doesn't make sense to put Category:Ford Taunus in Category:Taunus though either. I guess I'd hesitantly keep it. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Using an adjective like Swiss isn't the same as naming that part of the Alps after Switzerland, but I take your point. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure a village that has its location (a mountain range) in its name qualifies as being "named after" the mountains any more than the Swiss Alps are "named after" Switerland. But I don't see a problem with this category, aside from the fact that it only has one sub-category. It doesn't make sense to put Category:Ford Taunus in Category:Taunus though either. I guess I'd hesitantly keep it. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, it's part of the huge named after category scheme, in particular Category:Things named after mountains, which I've added. I have also added a few things named after Taunus (among others, two ships and a whole class of railcars). I haven't added the districts or towns or other places where Taunus seems more like a geographic designation than a "named after" (as per Themightyquill). --rimshottalk 21:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much support to delete. Are we okay to close? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The only "men at work" cat "by century". Please delete it. E4024 (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- A category being the only example of its kind isn't necessarily a reason for deletion. It fits fairly well within an existing category tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I see no problem with it. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I see no problem with it either. --JopkeB (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:Men at work in the 21st century please. E4024 (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Why? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Because it's unnecessary. Look "around". --E4024 (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Around" what? I think it's up to you to make the case for the change, not make others guess. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- There's nothing similar around; therefore no need to single out the waiters. Have a good week-end. --E4024 (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Waiters are not being singled out, they are just the first ones. Other professions are welcome. - Olybrius (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's how I see it. It can be interesting to see people in different professions in different time periods: you'd see different equipment they used, different clothing they wore, etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Photographers in the 17th century could be interesting. Probably they had very primitive cell phones. :) --E4024 (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- But there are lots of other professions that have existed for several centuries: educators, various medical professionals, military people, farmers, grocers, just to name a few. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Photographers in the 17th century could be interesting. Probably they had very primitive cell phones. :) --E4024 (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's how I see it. It can be interesting to see people in different professions in different time periods: you'd see different equipment they used, different clothing they wore, etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Waiters are not being singled out, they are just the first ones. Other professions are welcome. - Olybrius (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- There's nothing similar around; therefore no need to single out the waiters. Have a good week-end. --E4024 (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Around" what? I think it's up to you to make the case for the change, not make others guess. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Because it's unnecessary. Look "around". --E4024 (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- We have Category:Street vendors by century, Category:Nurses by century, and Category:Physicians by century. I think it makes a lot of sense to categorize professions this way, to see how the job changes over time. Personally, I think we should all thank Olybrius for starting out with "by century" instead of "by year" like some people seem to enjoy! Category:Waiters in December 1992 we don't need. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- User:Olybrius, only 9 images in your cat. AFAICS great majority of waiter images in Commons are from this century. I'm busy trying to categorize US propaganda images (see uncategorized images of "iftar") therefore cannot help you. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I see no problem; part of waiters by time period category tree that can be of use to those interested in history of the profession/restaurants. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
No consensus to delete. Kept: per discussion. Fits well into the parent Category:Waiters by century Estopedist1 (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Suggest moving back to Category:Worms Head, while some sources to use the apostrophe, OS doesn't and neither does Google Maps. @Jon Kolbert: who moved it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose That's why we have a redirect. People will find it. Categories are for navigation, not definition. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- But the name appears to be Worms Head, people will find that via the Worm's Head redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support If I were to choose, I would opt for Worms, which is used by organisations whose business it is to know, such as Ordnance Survey, Coflein and the Wormshead Coastwatch etc. But from a cursory search of Google it looks like Worm's is a popular (mis)spelling. It would be more sensible to create a redirect from Worm's Head, in my view. Sionk (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
stale. The result was keep, same solution in enwiki en:Worm's Head Estopedist1 (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I cannot see the oxen here. E4024 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. They are models, not the real thing, and I did not think it appropriate to set up a category for model ox-drawn ambulances . . .
- That they are intended to be drawn by oxen is shown by the kind of hitch to the motorising animal which you may see from the forward end of the pole.
- And, in case I've misunderstood, this category I intended to be used for the vehicle and not for the draft animal so you may / may not see oxen in more images added here. Hope that's a help in understanding my often imperfect reasoning. Eddaido (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- It later crossed my mind that it might be that in India female (cattle) are never used to pull vehicles. Then we can go back to oxen I need someone who knows the answer, please! Eddaido (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- This category should be kept. The absence of the oxen doesn't change the identity of the vehicle as one that's meant to be ox-drawn. I don't know the answer to Eddaido's concern, however. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Ox-drawn ambulances by country Estopedist1 (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Umbenennen in "Natural monuments in Oberhausen (near Bad Bergzabern)" wg. Vereinheitlichung F. Riedelio (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oberhausen wird bei der Liste der Orte im Landkreis (Municipalities in Südliche Weinstraße) nicht angezeigt. Dies liegt möglicherweise an der Schreibweise bei... statt near... --Rudolf Wild 16:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuWild (talk • contribs) 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- erledigt? --F. Riedelio (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I moved the category in question to Category:Natural monuments in Oberhausen (near Bad Bergzabern). I guess we can close this discussion, @F. Riedelio and RuWild: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. F. Riedelio • talk 08:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was move/rename Estopedist1 (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
this cat is now doubled with Cloisters of Sant'Antonio (Padua) and redundant and should be deleted Oursana (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Cloisters of Sant'Antonio (Padua) was created in 2016, 4 years after Category:Arcades of Sant'Antonio (Padua). For me it's ok, the latter can be deleted. I see that Cloisters of Sant'Antonio (Padua) is part of the Cloisters in Padua, that should be included in Arcades in Padua. Carlo58s (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Even if these categories currently contain the same thing (which they don't quite, because one has an individual file that the other doesn't), they should both be kept. Cloisters and arcades are not the same thing, and neither is a subset of the other: an arcade (architecturally speaking) is a row of arches, and a cloister is a covered walkway with one open side that may or may not be formed as an arcade. I think the categorization is probably OK as it is, although some of the cloister images may not show the arcades. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. No consensus to merge/delete Estopedist1 (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
It houses only Category:Somatics and the subcats of Somatics do not make me think this is an appropriate categorization. E4024 (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep--Allforrous (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe we should discuss more and categorize less instead of voting without arguments. --E4024 (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, Category:Traditional medicine belong somewhere here. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, per E4024 (curiously). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. No consensus to delete Estopedist1 (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I have nothing against having this cat, if we have files to populate it. At this moment, the only file in it seems to be taken (I guess) at an "eid" day but has nothing specific to eid; only people having a sunny day near the sea. This image is not enough to have this cat. E4024 (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- E4024 by using google translate, It's Hebrew description help us to find this a pic about Eid al-Adha. But, Eid days for muslims around the world can includes various topics, like outdoor activities, home-based parties, prayers etc. also note that muslims in Israel are minority, so even a pic like this one from them can be categorized. --Rafic.Mufid (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just a minute ago you said you were too busy with the upcoming Eid al-Fitr (Ramadan). I have seen many uncategorized "iftar" files in Israel. Just FYI. --E4024 (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep it was created 19 May 2018, give it some proper time to become populated. You said yourself the category is valid, it just needs to be populated. If in half a year it still has only one file we could reconsider. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Stale discussion. The result was keep. The nominated category has two files and the category fits well into the parent Category:Eid al-Adha by country Estopedist1 (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
We have Category:Wine taverns but Category:Wine bars by country as a subcategory. We also have both Category:Wine bars in the Czech Republic & Category:Wine taverns in Czechia, Category:Wine bars in France & Category:Wine taverns in France, Category:Wine taverns in Germany & Category:Wine bars in Germany. Themightyquill (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. Category:Wine bars by country is not a subcategory anymore. Any loose ends, user:Themightyquill?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Thanks. It looks like I missed the existence of Category:Wine bars when I opened this discussion. Category:Wine taverns links to fr:Winstub (a particular type of rustic wine bar in Alsace and German Switzerland), and to de:Weinstube with a similar if slightly different definition. Category:Wine bars links to en:Wine bars, fr:Bar à vin and de:Bodega. Confusingly, Category:Bodegas redirects to Category:Wineries. If nothing else, I'd suggest making Category:Wine taverns a subcategory of Category:Wine bars and Category:Wine taverns by country a subcategory of Category:Wine bars by country. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Moved per above. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC) Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
A majority of files in this category depict unidentified women. We cannot know enough about their religious identity. Wearing a veil does not make one a Muslim, Muslim women are not the only ones wearing veils, and not all Muslim women wear veils. It seems that this category was intended to consist of images of women wearing Islamic veils. Surtsicna (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Are you a sockpuppet of E4024? Mostly they open discussions like this. :) Look, I observe that there is a "passion" about Islam (and women) all around WM projects; I don't know why. If I had time, I would certainly add Bella Hadid and some of the Turkish girls in Category:Women's volleyball players from Turkey in that cat... P.S. One of my sisters played basketball, the other volleyball and the youngest became one of the first female football players of Turkey, in "Dostlukspor". They always wore the traditional sportswear and almost never neglected "fasting" in Ramazan. ("Ramazan" is Ramadan in Turkish. It begins tomorrow/tonight; this is why I referred to it.) I think both of us did not say much helpful; but at least you opened a discussion. I hope my words also serve something, at least for some colleagues to understand the mental universe of some of their colleagues. --E4024 (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Some of the images are even emojis, which can't be said to depict women at all. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Surtsicna and E4024: I agree that Category:Women wearing headscarves would be much better for many of these image, and I encourage you to create sub-categories by country. That said, there's nothing wrong with this category per se. There are some women that are known to be muslim who belong in this category. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 and Themightyquill: Are there well-established standards for when it is appropriate to identify someone as a member of a religion (e.g. published self-identification as such) on Commons? Can we somehow make it clear that the category is restricted to categories for women who meet this standard, and not a place for images that a viewer merely interprets as appearing to meet whatever their idea of Muslim might be? On one hand I am wary of sorting media by something that is not usually depicted in the image, but I get the concept of people who openly identify as a member of a particular group being able to be found through a link to that group. Josh (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- English Wikipedia has en:WP:CAT/R, which says:
- Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see en:WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate.
- For Commons purposes, we might also accept images of multiple women at Muslim religious events, on the theory that at least some of them are likely to be Muslim. I'd also like to point out that wearing the type of head covering often worn by Muslim women does not mean that the person is Muslim. Non-Muslim women may wear them when visiting Muslim communities, when portraying Muslim characters on TV or in movies, and there are probably other reasons. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- English Wikipedia has en:WP:CAT/R, which says:
- @Auntof6 and Themightyquill: Are there well-established standards for when it is appropriate to identify someone as a member of a religion (e.g. published self-identification as such) on Commons? Can we somehow make it clear that the category is restricted to categories for women who meet this standard, and not a place for images that a viewer merely interprets as appearing to meet whatever their idea of Muslim might be? On one hand I am wary of sorting media by something that is not usually depicted in the image, but I get the concept of people who openly identify as a member of a particular group being able to be found through a link to that group. Josh (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Surtsicna and E4024: I agree that Category:Women wearing headscarves would be much better for many of these image, and I encourage you to create sub-categories by country. That said, there's nothing wrong with this category per se. There are some women that are known to be muslim who belong in this category. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I tidied it a bit. --E4024 (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion @Joshbaumgartner, Themightyquill, and Auntof6: . The nominated category fits well into the parent Category:Women by religion. The hatnote at the nominated category would be fine, but in Commons we probably cannot be so rigid as en:WP:CAT/R insists.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Agreed that WP is not our guide, WC has its own community standards. What hatnote would you propose? I agree that one would be helpful to clarify the intended contents of the category, as mis-categorization of people by religion could be quite problematic. Josh (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think deleting the category is needed, just better... oversight? control? definition? policy? guideline? ...over what goes in it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Kept: general consensus here that the category shouldn't be deleted (but should be more aggressively patrolled to remove images which might not belong). Elli (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
needs to be changed to Liam Coleman (banker) 47.151.26.64 23:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- NeverDoING has moved the category without comment. I'm not sure I see the point as long as there is a redirect from Category:Liam Coleman to Category:Liam Coleman (banker), and since we have no images of the other en:Liam Coleman. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- obvious mistake by user:NeverDoING. Original situation is restored. Discussion can be closed, once the Category:Liam Coleman (banker) is deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Seems redundant to Category:Trade unionists from the United States, which it is a subcategory of. I can't see any logical distinction, and can't find another country with a "Labor leaders in" category, most have "Trade unionists from" categories. GRuban (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Mergint into Category:Trade unionists from the United States makes sense to me. If necessary, we could have Category:Trade union leaders but I'm not sure it's necessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think Category:Labor leaders in the United States is for people who lead labor movements (possibly union presidents, big movement organizers, etc.), as opposed to Category:Trade unionists from the United States who may have merely been well-known for participating in a union, helping to organize, or advocating for unions without being the a labor boss per se. --Closeapple (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem to be a good distinguisher. Let's look at the article leads of the first 5 people in Category:Trade unionists from the United States that have EN Wikipedia articles:
- Annie E. Malloy (1 F) - no EN article
- César Chávez (8 C, 1 P, 57 F) - César Chávez - "Cesar Chavez (born César Estrada Chávez,[1] locally [ˈsesaɾ esˈtɾaða ˈtʃaβes]; March 31, 1927 – April 23, 1993) was an American labor leader ..."
- Elizabeth Gurley Flynn (1 C, 1 P, 17 F) - Elizabeth Gurley Flynn - "Elizabeth Gurley Flynn (August 7, 1890 – September 5, 1964) was a labor leader, …"
- William Zebulon Foster (4 F) - William Zebulon Foster - "William Z. Foster (February 25, 1881 – September 1, 1961) was a radical American labor organizer and Marxist politician, whose career included serving as General Secretary of the Communist Party USA..."
- George Baldanzi (3 F) - George Baldanzi - "George Baldanzi (January 23, 1907 – April 16, 1972)[1] was an American trade unionist. He was the founding executive vice president of the Textile Workers Union of America (TWUA), and had a rivalry with Emil Rieve, the founding president of the organization. This rivalry led to his ouster from the TWUA in 1952, after which he joined the United Textile Workers of America as national organizing director. Following the merger of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) into the AFL-CIO in 1958, Baldanzi was president of the United Textile Workers of America"
- Arthur Goldberg (12 F) - Arthur Goldberg - "Arthur Joseph Goldberg (August 8, 1908 – January 19, 1990) was an American statesman and jurist who served as the 9th U.S. Secretary of Labor,"
- So 2 are specifically called labor leaders, and the other 3 clearly held leadership labor-related positions; should leader of the Communist Party USA or Secretary of Labor count as a "labor leader" seems like a difficult hair to split. Can we merge? --GRuban (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- I accept what you say Closeapple, that "labor leaders" is for union presidents, etc, but surely, all union presidents are Trade unionists. I'd say merge, unless we have enough content to create Category:Trade union leaders. But then individuals could likely go in both Category:Trade unionists from the United States (or other country) and Category:Trade union leaders. I don't expect we'll need Category:Trade union leaders from the United States anytime soon. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- But haven't some labor leaders not been trade unionists? I suppose that's rare in the last 50 years in Western civilization, where modern trade unions are a familiar concept. But I'm assuming that there are a lot of countries, particularly ones where the government monopolizes the workers' representation itself without permission, where labor movements have leaders that are not necessarily members of a trade union. --Closeapple (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- I accept what you say Closeapple, that "labor leaders" is for union presidents, etc, but surely, all union presidents are Trade unionists. I'd say merge, unless we have enough content to create Category:Trade union leaders. But then individuals could likely go in both Category:Trade unionists from the United States (or other country) and Category:Trade union leaders. I don't expect we'll need Category:Trade union leaders from the United States anytime soon. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- So 2 are specifically called labor leaders, and the other 3 clearly held leadership labor-related positions; should leader of the Communist Party USA or Secretary of Labor count as a "labor leader" seems like a difficult hair to split. Can we merge? --GRuban (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Closeapple: Well, perhaps, but that doesn't justify keeping Category:Labor leaders in the United States, does it? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. The category name part <Labor leaders> is unique in Commons database. Solution per user:GRuban and user:Themightyquill, ie the nominated category to be merged with Category:Trade unionists from the United States--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This was allowed to go stale, but the consensus to merge up to Category:Trade unionists from the United States" seems pretty clear. - Jmabel ! talk 18:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Paraduin? An unused flag in the cat. Does it have any notability to be in our scope? E4024 (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure what your idea is, but the flag is certainly not unused. I case you meant the file, it's in use now as well and was so before. Sincerely, Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, from what I can tell Paraduin is an existing claimed sovereign country, even if the English-language Wikipedia decides against its inclusion in their encyclopedia doesn't mean that others don't want to educate people about its existence. In fact I think that we should be glad that the designer of the flag has decided to donate it to Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete only one file... This defeats the entire purpose of categories, namely to group similar files together. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- That is not true, categories can only include more files if they have the potential to have more files and if they make sense. I've seen plenty of categories with only one file in it, especially if there is a related Wikipedia article which at the time of its creation there was. There is no need to overpopulate higher categories if you can make sensible sub-categories which you can later populate and it doesn't matter if this is years old (the page being created on June 13th (thirteenth), 2017) since there is no deadline. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with categories that have potential. I just do not see Paraduin having that potential. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- That may depend on what the WMF does next. They made a good start with Fram, but it takes more for me to be interested in contributing again. Of course, freely licensed images can also be uploaded by others. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with categories that have potential. I just do not see Paraduin having that potential. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- That is not true, categories can only include more files if they have the potential to have more files and if they make sense. I've seen plenty of categories with only one file in it, especially if there is a related Wikipedia article which at the time of its creation there was. There is no need to overpopulate higher categories if you can make sensible sub-categories which you can later populate and it doesn't matter if this is years old (the page being created on June 13th (thirteenth), 2017) since there is no deadline. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Don't need a category for Guido's personal fiction. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- We don't need categories, period. But given that we have them, it's best to be consistent. Micronations usually have their own category. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- I counted 36 micronations that have their own categories in Category:Micronations, but 350 flags of micronations without even including subcategorised flags. So no, this means approximately 90 percent of micronations represented on Commons do not have their own category. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- It is nonetheless customary, but as so often someone has to do the work (53 have been properly subcategorized now). Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- I counted 36 micronations that have their own categories in Category:Micronations, but 350 flags of micronations without even including subcategorised flags. So no, this means approximately 90 percent of micronations represented on Commons do not have their own category. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- We don't need categories, period. But given that we have them, it's best to be consistent. Micronations usually have their own category. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Self promotion of this kind should not be tolerated. Wiki is not built for this purpose.--Roy17 (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- What in "You can find collections of similar files grouped by topic or by almost any other characteristic you can think of" do you not understand? Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- What do you not understand about the grammatical plural form used in your quote? --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- There are 4 files. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- What do you not understand about the grammatical plural form used in your quote? --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- What in "You can find collections of similar files grouped by topic or by almost any other characteristic you can think of" do you not understand? Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The file is here, so it should be categorized. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - No reason at all to delete this! - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete As long as there is just one file, I think a category is unnecessary. And I don't need a promotion for Guido's personal fiction either. Commons is not for self promotion. After the current category has been deleted, the file can be categorised with subcategories of the parent categories of the current category. The current parent categories are way out of proportion, except for Micronations. And please, add a description. JopkeB (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I chose the same parent categories that the Liberland category has. I'm not particularly attached to them. In case you're not familiar with micronations: they're all fictional. They stop being fictional only when they become countries, which has happened to some in the past. Fiction, meanwhile, is a significant part of the WMF projects. National flags, micro or otherwise, don't exist for promotion, but for identification. They contain no commercial slogan or whatever. Guido den Broeder (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Then the parent categories of Liberland should be checked also. JopkeB (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Btw, by 'add a description', do you mean the image, the category, or both? I see boxes that didn't exist before. Feel free to do the honors, and I'll correct any factual mistakes. Guido den Broeder (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- You may 'add a description' in the file as well as in the category; inform viewers at least about the what (is Paraduin) and where (is it), and perhaps about the who (owns it) and when (was it established). JopkeB (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, however when I did that on Wikipedia I got banned, so it may be better if someone else handles it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is Commons. If your text makes sense, is short (one or two lines) and you do not violate a file or a category, than it is OK. JopkeB (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, however when I did that on Wikipedia I got banned, so it may be better if someone else handles it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- You may 'add a description' in the file as well as in the category; inform viewers at least about the what (is Paraduin) and where (is it), and perhaps about the who (owns it) and when (was it established). JopkeB (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Is Guido the Head of State of Paraduin? --E4024 (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Google is your friend (work in progress). Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Is Guido the Head of State of Paraduin? --E4024 (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Can someone close this please? It's been more than four years, and a valid reason to delete has not surfaced. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Note: requester has left Commons over a similar dubious fd. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete Commons is not for self promotion. And I don't need a promotion for Guido's personal fiction either. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah. Another revenge-!vote. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Files that we have need to be categorized. The only question here is how to do so efficiently. I have no personal stake in the way it is done, I'm merely copying how other micronational images are categorized for the sake of consistency. However, FYI Commons is neither for nor against 'self-promotion', rather the uploader of a file is often the creator since only they can give the file a free license. This is not Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- It is not true that "Commons is neither for nor against 'self-promotion'": Commons is against self-promotion, see Commons:Project scope#Examples, 4th bullet. --JopkeB (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see anything there that contradicts my statement. It's about uselessness. Self-promotion provides lots of examples, but is not forbidden here per se. Remember, Commons serves all kinds of projects; there could for instance be a wikibook on the very topic of self-promotion that needs images. And even on Wikipedia, if you put a picture of your self-baked pie on your user page we're not going to delete it. But you can discuss that further on the policy's talk page of you wish. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- It is not true that "Commons is neither for nor against 'self-promotion'": Commons is against self-promotion, see Commons:Project scope#Examples, 4th bullet. --JopkeB (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus |  No consensus | |||
| Actions | Keep Category:Paraduin for now. If the files are out of scope, nominate them for deletion and once Category:Paraduin is empty, it will qualify for  Speedy delete as a result. | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
I propose that the "weather and climate characteristics" categories be eliminated. Not only is the term somewhat vague, but the categories are not needed. The categories in question fall into two groups.
Group 1: Categories for weather and climate characteristics of individual months
Categories included:
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of April
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of August
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of December
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of February
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of January
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of July
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of June
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of March
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of May
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of November
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of October
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of September
The content of these could be merged to "weather phenomena" categories, if it's not already there. Most of what is in these is about snow or clouds (for example, Clouds in <month> or Snow in <month>); the main categories for clouds and snow are already under weather phenomena (via precipitation in the case of snow).
Group 2: Categories for weather and climate characteristics of individual seasons
Categories included:
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of spring (and its redirect)
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of summer (and its redirect)
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of autumn (and its redirect)
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of winter (and its redirect)
These categories should be deleted, not recreated under weather.
The issues with these are:
- Few things about weather characteristics are really season-specific. (Remember, these categories are for characteristics, not actual events.)
- We have no guidelines as to when each season begins or ends. Some people use astronomical seasons, which start at the solstices and equinoxes. Some use local definitions, which vary from place to place.
- Each of these categories contains 5 or 6 subcategories named "Weather and climate chracteristics of <month>" (the categories listed in group 1 above). Categorizing month-specific things under a season is a problem. That's because the month categories can have content from both the northern and southern hemispheres, and therefore content from different seasons. To illustrate what I mean, here is a possible hierarchy we could see here:
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of spring
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of April
- Category:Clouds in April
- <files of clouds in April from France>
- <files of clouds in April from South Africa>
- <files of various April weather/climate things from anywhere in the world>
- Category:Clouds in April
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of April
- Category:Weather and climate characteristics of spring
- Since April in France is in their spring, but April in South Africa is in their autumn, we would have clouds in autumn categorized under a spring category. This gets even more complicated in the case of months that are divided between seasons.
Auntof6 (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete the whole lot, right down to Category:Clouds in April - Themightyquill (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agree, delete all of these. You can't even make groups like this. Each month can contain any weather characteristic, and people do seem to forget we have two hemispheres. And each season has very different characteristics across the globe; this could become counterproductive. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Group 2 as ambiguous per my previous comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/01/Category:Spring 2018. Unsure about Group 1, it doesn't appear to have the same problems. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Auntof6, Themightyquill, Ruff tuff cream puff and Crouch, Swale: Agree: Delete. I think climate characteristics should be about the characteristics of climates, like of tropical, Mediterranean, continental and polar climates. The current (sub)categories are not a good idea for Commons. --JopkeB (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Looks to me like you have consensus. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Thanks. I'll take a little time to remember what my thinking was when I proposed this, then empty the categories, recategorizing as necessary. Then the categories will be ready for deletion. What's the best way to get them deleted -- maybe a note to you here letting you know they're empty? -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Looks to me like you have consensus. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
@Auntof6: You can, but I don't check in so often anymore. You should be able to tag them for speedy deletion as empty or with reference to this discussion, and someone else will likely get to it sooner. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
All empty cats deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Relatively recently created cat. Some cats therein, like "Eid ul-fitr by country" and others have different titles. These have to be harmonized. E4024 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- E4024 like what i did for Category:Eid al-Adha. Be sure i will correct this cat before 2018 Eid al-Fitr (15 June). --Rafic.Mufid (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. Consistency is good. --E4024 (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Seems that the problem is solved, and the discussion can be closed.--Jonund (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yep. Consistency is good. --E4024 (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Former closure of this discussion, since the problem has been solved. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)