Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2015/04
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive April 2015
Double of Category:Politics of the canton of Ticino; should therefore be deleted. NAC (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Closed - redirected to Category:Politics of the canton of Ticino. Wieralee (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Empty category Reguyla (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Closed - redirected to Category:Ronny Svensson Wieralee (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
At 13:39, 4 April 2015 Wieralee (talk · contribs) proposed the following:
- Move|Petrol stations in the United States|2=to harmonize the category names of a set of categories. Although the term "Gas station" is more widely used in US, I think the category should be called "Petrol stations in the United States" because this term is more widely used world wide. This is also consistent with the file system in upper Category:Petrol stations by country.|3=2015-04-04
Closed - redirected to Category:Petrol stations in the United States. Wieralee (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I mispelled the subject's name, and I would like to remove the redirect wL <speak·creatively> 04:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 21:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Recommend deleting this category and its contents. I know this is a sensitive issue for some, but it appears this category is no longer needed and it appears the files it were intended to be deleted. Reguyla (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment I already deleted it once as an empty category a while back. Russavia has since re-created it. It now has 42 more files added by new socks overnight. Deleting it again would be a waste of time. You could do that and even salt it, but he could easily create categories with slightly different names to get around that. He created 14 new socks overnight, so if this is deleted he's just going to re-create it or something similar with another sock. Also, as long as he continues to sock around his ban, he going to add new files to the category on a regular basis. INeverCry 20:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that makes complete sense and I admit I didn't really look at the dates it was created or when it was added to the category. I was merely categorizing some files and stumbled there and thought it was unneeded. Feel free to close this then. Reguyla (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
kept: Withdrawn by nominator. INeverCry 20:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
花に希望を--祈り・ 116.0.139.87 09:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Machine translation makes this look like a poem. Is there anything you want to discuss? --rimshottalk 21:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Nothing done, no reply. --rimshottalk 21:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
This category contains 90,000+ pictures that were mass-uploaded by/for Russavia, who has now been globally banned by WMF. On the one hand it is highly unlikely that these will ge checked any time soon. On the other hand the mere presence of these files will continue to draw out Russavia sock puppets to work on them. I suggest to find a way to mass delete these images. Whaledad (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep category and files – I don't believe that it would do Commons any justice by mass deleting ten of thousands of files. This category wasn't been a cause of concern when Russavia wasn't globally banned, and I don't believe that that should change. Maintenance categories exists for one purpose: facilitating maintenance, so let's perform maintenance. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)- Keep the proposal here is to delete the category, not the files. Russavia is WMF-banned, a topic on which Commons has no consensus; Russavia is not banned here, but even if he were, this would not have anything to do with his pre-ban uploads. --Abd (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment This is Russavia. Whaledad your suggestion is seriously out of whack with the reality. This tells me that there are 97,000 files in these categories, and 1% of them are currently in use in mainspace across all projects. Many of the files have already been categorised inline with various requirements and simply need to have the check category removed. Instead of trying to find ways of deleting content (which will go down like a lead balloon), one should try to find way to increase the content repository. Icelandicavia (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Many of the files seem to be in scope. If you have concerns about specific files, then nominate those for deletion separately. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Speedily closed: COM:CFD is for the discussion of categories, i.e. about the reorganization, renaming, and deletion of categories. COM:CFD is the wrong venue to discuss the deletion of files within a particular category. And we do not mass-delete 90,000+ files just because the uploader has been globally banned for non-public reasons. This global ban and its enforcement is the concern of WMF, not ours. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Artículos buenos Tusca-bis (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Nothing done, not a category discussion. But thanks for the compliment. --rimshottalk 22:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Mistaken place name. B. Jankuloski (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
deleted: empty --JuTa 20:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no village in Norfolk called "Little Ouse". Motacilla (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete Agreed, it was a parish but I think its component parts are represented by individual villages; I don't think I can delete it myself since I created it. Any other Admin could delete it as an empty category. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, empty, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 22:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
empty category Ehrlich91 (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, badly named duplicate of Category:Old Gradsko train station. --rimshottalk 06:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Empty Category Reguyla (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, still empty. --rimshottalk 09:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
As per precedent set at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/01/Category:Women named Barbara. Also Category:Men named John and Category:Men named Raphael. Auntof6 (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- To be honest, I agree that's not really really useful. But I don't see why we delete such categories. People can be interested in seeing/knowing who share the same name. It's not worse that knowing who shares the same hair colour or the same nationality ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- First I want to clarify that I am fine with it if everyone thinks these Men/Women by name categories aren't needed. I agree with the points TwoWings made about people being interested in it but I think they are also useful for determining if we have that subject already or if its needed. Right now these categories are underpopulated and I admit they would never be 100% for a variety of reasons but that is true of many categories. I would also caution using a 4 year old discussion as a "precedent". Four years ago Commons had far less everything to keep track of. It had less images, it had less categories and it had less work in general. A lot of things changed in 4 years so I don't think we should get to wrapped up over we discussed this 4 years ago. A lot happened in that four years. As discussed in the other Village pump discussion, I think these categories offer better diffusion that People by name. It should flow like this:
- People ~~> People by name ~~> Men/Women by name ~~> Men/Women named X if that category contains a sufficient number of categories to make it worth it.
- If its preferred, we could change it to something like Males/Females so its not specific to age related Men/Women but I do think this is needed and will continue to be more relevant as we get more and more images and people with information available. Having a massive category like Category:People by name has precisely zero usefulness without meaningful diffusion to break it into usable pieces. Reguyla (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Why not. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable to me. Reguyla (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 and TwoWings: Is everyone happy with the outcome here? If so I recommend we close this and move forward with the "Category:James (given name)" schema recommended by Auntof6. Reguyla (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 and TwoWings: Greetings folks. I think we have given this discussion plenty of time and anyone who wanted to comment has had enough time to do so. Can we close this now? I'm not sure if its appropriate for me to close this but if everyone agrees then I would be happy to do as much of the work as I can. An admin would need to Move/Rename the category but I could go through all the articles that have the old Men named John cat and change it to John (surname) as suggested above. Reguyla (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm happy with the outcome (since I came up with the solution anyway!). Just note, the cats named here were for given names, not surnames, so we don't want a "(surname)" qualifier on them. It doesn't take an admin to move them, though. Since I'm the last to post agreement here, I'll go ahead and do the work. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Auntof6 Oh your right. I'll start getting those fixed. I can knock those out quick but do I need to request a flood flag temporarily or something? I don't want to agitate the mob if I am editing too fast.:-) Reguyla (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I finished doing the work on these three categories. What categories do you see that still need work? In any case, this CfD should get closed now, so let's take any further discussion to our personal talk pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Auntof6 Oh your right. I'll start getting those fixed. I can knock those out quick but do I need to request a flood flag temporarily or something? I don't want to agitate the mob if I am editing too fast.:-) Reguyla (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm happy with the outcome (since I came up with the solution anyway!). Just note, the cats named here were for given names, not surnames, so we don't want a "(surname)" qualifier on them. It doesn't take an admin to move them, though. Since I'm the last to post agreement here, I'll go ahead and do the work. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 and TwoWings: Greetings folks. I think we have given this discussion plenty of time and anyone who wanted to comment has had enough time to do so. Can we close this now? I'm not sure if its appropriate for me to close this but if everyone agrees then I would be happy to do as much of the work as I can. An admin would need to Move/Rename the category but I could go through all the articles that have the old Men named John cat and change it to John (surname) as suggested above. Reguyla (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 and TwoWings: Is everyone happy with the outcome here? If so I recommend we close this and move forward with the "Category:James (given name)" schema recommended by Auntof6. Reguyla (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable to me. Reguyla (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:James (given name) as per discussion. --rimshottalk 09:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
As per precedent set at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/01/Category:Women named Barbara. Also Category:Men named James and Category:Men named Raphael Auntof6 (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- First I want to clarify that I am fine with it if everyone thinks these Men/Women by name categories aren't needed. I agree with the points TwoWings made about people being interested in it but I think they are also useful for determining if we have that subject already or if its needed. Right now these categories are underpopulated and I admit they would never be 100% for a variety of reasons but that is true of many categories. I would also caution using a 4 year old discussion as a "precedent". Four years ago Commons had far less everything to keep track of. It had less images, it had less categories and it had less work in general. A lot of things changed in 4 years so I don't think we should get to wrapped up over we discussed this 4 years ago. A lot happened in that four years. As discussed in the other Village pump discussion, I think these categories offer better diffusion that People by name. It should flow like this:
- People ~~> People by name ~~> Men/Women by name ~~> Men/Women named X if that category contains a sufficient number of categories to make it worth it.
- If its preferred, we could change it to something like Males/Females so its not specific to age related Men/Women but I do think this is needed and will continue to be more relevant as we get more and more images and people with information available. Having a massive category like Category:People by name has precisely zero usefulness without meaningful diffusion to break it into usable pieces. Reguyla (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:John (given name), per Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/04/Category:Men named James. --rimshottalk 09:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
As per precedent set at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/01/Category:Women named Barbara. Also Category:Men named James and Category:Men named John Auntof6 (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- See my comment here. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- First I want to clarify that I am fine with it if everyone thinks these Men/Women by name categories aren't needed. I agree with the points TwoWings made about people being interested in it but I think they are also useful for determining if we have that subject already or if its needed. Right now these categories are underpopulated and I admit they would never be 100% for a variety of reasons but that is true of many categories. I would also caution using a 4 year old discussion as a "precedent". Four years ago Commons had far less everything to keep track of. It had less images, it had less categories and it had less work in general. A lot of things changed in 4 years so I don't think we should get to wrapped up over we discussed this 4 years ago. A lot happened in that four years. As discussed in the other Village pump discussion, I think these categories offer better diffusion that People by name. It should flow like this:
- People ~~> People by name ~~> Men/Women by name ~~> Men/Women named X if that category contains a sufficient number of categories to make it worth it.
- If its preferred, we could change it to something like Males/Females so its not specific to age related Men/Women but I do think this is needed and will continue to be more relevant as we get more and more images and people with information available. Having a massive category like Category:People by name has precisely zero usefulness without meaningful diffusion to break it into usable pieces. Reguyla (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Raphael (given name), per Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/04/Category:Men named James. --rimshottalk 09:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Created early 2013 and still empty, and what is "challenge cartoon" anyway? The web does not seem to know. Herostratus (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 14:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Rename to "M6 (TV channel)" or similar. Many other uses of M6, including an audio player, a bayonet, a tank, various motorways/highways and models of cars, etc. Will no doubt mean something different to people from different countries. PC78 (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Support renaming to "M6 (TV channel)", and turning into a disambiguation, as there are incredibly many potential disambiguation targets. --rimshottalk 17:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:M6 (TV channel) and disambiguated, as per nom. --rimshottalk 13:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Simple technical request: decapitalize Stick to stick. The expression is not capitalized, see w:carrot and stick. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Agree --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Carrot and stick as per nom. --rimshottalk 13:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Incorrectly named in cyrillic characters. Contents moved to Category:Rogozhskoe cemetery and its subcategories. Please delete. Retired electrician (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, as empty. --rimshottalk 13:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate category. This is the former name of the Category:Toitū Otago Settlers Museum. Merge. --Grutness (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Toitū Otago Settlers Museum, as per nom. --rimshottalk 12:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
عادل الناجم عادل الناجم (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Not done, accidental creation. --rimshottalk 12:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Category replaced by Category:Avaya Stadium, now that the name is official. --Cortomaltais (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Avaya Stadium, because the old category has existed so long. --rimshottalk 12:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Empty category, not needed as parent category is too small to warrant further categorization Jc86035 (talk • contributions • uploads) 05:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Is redundant to Category:Domstift Bautzen j.budissin+/- 22:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Gersdorfsches Palais j.budissin+/- 18:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
empty category GZWDer (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no place called "Carrington, Tomago". These are two different suburbs of Newcastle and Port Stephens Council respectively, that are 12km apart. Carrington was the site of the now defunct State Dockyard (closed in 1987) and the former site of Carrington Slipways, now Forgacs Shipyard Tomago, until 1972. The two shipyards are unrelated. AussieLegend (✉) 12:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
requesting deletion, I made an error creating it when Category:Historic house museums in Georgia already exists. Jim Derby (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
renamed to 'Category:Butcher's shops in Morocco' as per accordance with other categories Grashoofd (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
this category is empty, it should be deleted it has no files Duque Santiago (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Seguimiento de imágenes Tusca~enwiki (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, empty and category names are supposed to be English anyhow. --rimshottalk 08:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a confusing to use this cate, so I suggest to split this in the usual Category:SVG example images and Category:Examples representing SVG (former "SVG examples"), which is the literal meaning of SVG format examples. Because today all SVG images get moved here from Category:Example images. ↔ User:Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 22:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- And all PNG files get removed here (who were here since 2005). It would be nice if Allforrous can to do so again!? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 22:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Done As Allforrous had not answered, I've done all… ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 14:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Category:Demographic maps of people born in the United States of America by geographic subdivision
[edit]This move request is intended to apply to this category and approximately 200 similarly named subcategories. That may seem like a lot, but it pales in comparison with the thousands and thousands of categories referencing the United States as "United States". The proposed change would make this group of categories consistent with the vast majority of categories on this project, and would also remove excess verbiage (thereby making these already-lengthy category names easier to read). --BD2412 T 22:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hearing no comment, I went ahead and fixed these. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- No opposition, and BD2412 followed through with the suggested changes about six months ago. Closing. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
empty and wrong name (correct name: Category:Chickens of Turkey) Vikiçizer (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Soft redirect? BD2412 T 23:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK, possibly. No problem.Vikiçizer (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/Category talk:Chickens in Turkey. 'Chickens in Turkey' means chickens who were in Turkey when they were photographed, but the chickens may previously have immigrated from elsewhere. 'Chickens of Turkey' means chickens who are from Turkey but who were not necessarily in Turkey when the photograph was taken. In some sense, there could be some use for both categories, but I'm not sure if that amount of detail would be useful. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
This seems to have been dealt with already at Commons:Deletion_requests/Category_talk:Chickens_in_Turkey. The category was redirected. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:Kalenić Monastery (with diacritic) Zoupan (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support, per Category:Kalenić, but keep a redirect. --rimshottalk 15:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Achim (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Kalenić Monastery and kept a redirect. --Achim (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:Ethnic groups in Vojvodina as per Category:Ethnic groups by country Zoupan (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support - The suggested change would make this category match its parent and child categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Ethnic groups in Vojvodina. --Achim (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Rightname was Category:Fortín de La Galera The Photographer (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Nomination by creator. Redirected per nom. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Superseded by categories for Armenian churches in England and in the United Kingdom. Motacilla (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no categorization tree for Churches in Great Britain, and no need for one. Redirecting to Category:Armenian churches in the United Kingdom. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Uneeded category that only had 1 file in it Reguyla (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Nonsense. Category match Commons:Categories. In addition: You should not delete the categories in an image before this discussion ends. --Wikijunkie (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't really feel strongly either way, but generally we don't need a category for only one file. Generally we don't creatre a category unless there are at least 3 files or articles associated to that topic. That seems to be pretty standard across all the wiki's, not just here but if the decision is made to keep it that's fine. Reguyla (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Useful category about a notable person in line with Commons:Categories, in particular with Commons:Category scheme People#Categories for specific persons: “For notable people, it's generally worth creating a specific category, such as Category:Albert Einstein. "Notable people" are usually those with many images depicting them at Commons or with a Wikipedia article about them (in any language). You may find yourself creating new categories frequently, if you upload the first picture of a notable person.” (emphasis added). Carl Grünberg is a notable sociologist and currently is the subject of an article in six major language editions of Wikipedia. --UV (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep--Allforrous 03:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla, Wikijunkie, UV and Allforrous - There seemed to have been consensus to keep this category, even if there was only one file. It seems, however, that the category now contains no files at all. By any chance, do any of you know what happened to that one file? And if it's gone for good, should we now delete this category? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Themightyquill Its fine to close it as keep or delete. Its fien with me either way. To be honest I forgot this was even open. I don't know what file was in it or where it went honestly its been so long. Reguyla (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- File:Carl Grünberg.jpg was deleted for lack of permission. However, today File:Titelseite Zeitschrift für Social- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte Band 1 1893.jpg (which shows the title page of a notable academic journal that mentions Carl Grünberg's name as one of its four editors) was rightfully added to this category. Therefore, we should in my view keep this category. --UV (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per UV --Wikijunkie (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Kept, in use now. --rimshottalk 16:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Redundant category; members should be direct subcategories of Art or Humanities or both. FDMS 4 21:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
No opposition in over a month. Added {{Bad name}} - Themightyquill (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
All stamps from the Azerbaijan World Chess Championship set that contain Mickey Mouse images are copyrighted, and a note © Disney is printed on all those stamps, under the diamond. This can be clearly seen here [1] [2]. Materialscientist (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. There are also their appropriate licenses: {{PD-AZ-exempt}}. But maybe, we know the category name to change. --►Cekli829 04:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep.--samral talk 13:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep--Baskervill (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- samral, Araz Yaquboglu, Baskervill: This is not a vote. Please explain your reasoning. --rimshottalk 21:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept, the Azerbaijan stamp images appear to have been deleted, but there is still a non-empty child category. If there are copyright issues with those, they can be nominated for deletion and the empty category removed. That's not an issue for CFD. --rimshottalk 22:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it makes sense to move ALL files from Category:Grapsus adscensionis into this subcategory, while Category:Grapsus adscensionis is now empty. Fine-splitting at its best … Leyo 17:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's only the impression of today. I just like to clean categories first before I upload additional stuff - what might look somewhat overdone for a short while. There will be a Category:Grapsus adscensionis in La Palma containing several images and also some videos, soon.-- Ies (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept, parent category is better filled now. --rimshottalk 23:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Italy has no Freedom of Panorama, and Haring died in 1990, so no images of this mural would be acceptable to commons, as I understand it. Themightyquill (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, empty, probably for above reasons. --rimshottalk 22:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Are this type of dictionary categories acceptable? C messier (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- See Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/06/Category:Egyptian Arabic dialect for the discussion of the root category. --rimshottalk 21:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion exists elsewhere and category has been deleted as part of that process. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
This category has been tagged for Speedy deletion by Beyond My Ken, argumenting that this template is a duplicate of Category:NYPD. Category:NYPD redirects to Category:New York City Police Department, and this category is used by {{PD-NYCGov}} (PD means Public Doman); both categories serves different purposes, and this category is categorized in Category:New York City Police Department. Amitie 10g (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- In what way is it used by the template, and why does there need to be a category connected with the template? If there's some reason I don't understand (which I'm sure there is), shouldn't it then be a hidden category? Certainly it should be renamed, since it's only now that I'm understanding that the "PD" doesn't stand for "Police Department" but for "Public Domain". That being the case, I've changed its category from "New York City Police Department" to "Government of New York City", since some of the badges and insignia are not connected to the NYPD at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Again, this category is used by a PD template for the whole New York City Government and its institutions, and not exclusivelly by the New York Police Department (for this purpose existsCategory:NYPD; there are another "police" and security organizations).
- There a hundred of Public Domain templates (that starts with PD by Commons conventions and policies) that categorize files in the same way (like Template:TlPD-USGov) and its category Category:PD_US_Government. Please be more familiar with the Commons policies before doing these non-sense nominations again. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Since you appear to be an expert on the subject, can you answer the questions I posed above: why does a PD template need an associated category? Surely every image in the category is marked as being public domain? And each images has a different place it should go as its "master" category, including the NYPD category or the Government of NYC category, or other related cats? What makes this category so specially that it is locked and cannot be removed or renamed? Why is it not hidden?
You may have learned all about these things in your 5 years here, but I'm afraid that in my 7+ years I've never come across them before, so if you could take a moment and explain, I'd appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk)
- Never mind, I've figured out enough by myself to take care of the problem. The template {{PD-NYCGov}} now no longer categorizes to the ambiguously named Category:PD NYC and instead sends images automatically to the self-explanatory Category:Public domain - New York City government, which I've made a hidden category, and put in Category:Government of New York City, where it belongs. All the images that were in Category:PD NYC have been moved to the new Category:Public domain - New York City government, so the old cat is empty, and can now be deleted as unnecessary.
I would suggest that in the future, naming of such categories take into account that "PD" can stand not only for "Public Domain" -- which in the context of a license is perfectly reasonable -- but also be "Police Department", and that in the context of categories there is no easy way to tell which meaning is intended. Also, categories which are automatically populated by templates should have an explanation of their function to avoid future mix-ups such as this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Never mind, I've figured out enough by myself to take care of the problem. The template {{PD-NYCGov}} now no longer categorizes to the ambiguously named Category:PD NYC and instead sends images automatically to the self-explanatory Category:Public domain - New York City government, which I've made a hidden category, and put in Category:Government of New York City, where it belongs. All the images that were in Category:PD NYC have been moved to the new Category:Public domain - New York City government, so the old cat is empty, and can now be deleted as unnecessary.
- Since you appear to be an expert on the subject, can you answer the questions I posed above: why does a PD template need an associated category? Surely every image in the category is marked as being public domain? And each images has a different place it should go as its "master" category, including the NYPD category or the Government of NYC category, or other related cats? What makes this category so specially that it is locked and cannot be removed or renamed? Why is it not hidden?
- This could be kept if it is a hidden category. Epic Genius (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- The new version of the category Category:Public domain - New York City government is a hiddem cat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Empty category Mike Peel (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Now it's not.Not sure where the objects that used to be there went, but obviouslymanysome NGC objects are, in fact, asterisms (I have no expertise in this area, so I don't know how many), and "asterism" is one useful way to categorize NGC objects, so there's no good reason we shouldn't have the category. It just needs populating. - dcljr (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)- I found 5 at Wikipedia, but I could only find images here for one of them. - dcljr (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Whoops, no, I was wrong about the "one" I could find images of (it's not an asterism, after all). Still, there are at least 4 such objects we could have images of, and Category:NGC asterisms is one of several complementary subcats of Category:NGC objects by type, including Category:NGC galaxies, Category:NGC open clusters, and so forth. So…? - dcljr (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I found 5 at Wikipedia, but I could only find images here for one of them. - dcljr (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note that the also-empty Category:NGC objects of indeterminate type is even more problematic than the nominated one, since one reason these objects may be "of indeterminate type" is that no one has seen them again since they appeared in the catalog! I suppose it's possible there could be drawings of such objects (i.e., from the 1800s, so such images could possibly be hosted here), but I have no idea. I guess we could have images pointing to where the obejcts were supposed to be. That seems reasonable, but we probably don't have such images right now. The other (possible) reason is that the objects have been found again but just can't be identified, which seems somewhat unlikely given today's technology. It would be great if someone familar with NGC objects could weigh in here… - dcljr (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It shoud be renamed to "M. G. Ramachandran" to include the space. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Done: Moved by Kailash. --Achim (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Uneeded category. Only had one file it it Reguyla (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Nonsense. Category match Commons:Categories. --Wikijunkie (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Its fine with me if the decision is made to keep this but generally we don't need a category for only one file. Generally we don't create a category unless there are at least 3 files or articles associated to that topic. That seems to be pretty standard across all the wiki's, not just here but if the decision is made to keep it that's fine. Reguyla (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep--Allforrous 03:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Category now contains multiple files. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
This needs a simple rename: it's a palace, not a castle, so it should be at Category:Otowock Wielki Palace Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Perchance Category:Palace in Otwock Wielki or Category:Pałac at Otwock Wielki, what with "at" seeming to be the Commons way in these matters. Also needs a category redirect from Category:Pałac Jezierskich and Category:Pałac Bielińskich, as that is what an RS (Otwock i okolice: Przewodnik) or Google Maps have it listed as. And all that has to become encoded in the right places at www.translatewiki.org. Especially as we just un-Polished and un-machineTranslated the en wiki w:Palace in Otwock Wielki article, linking it now yo here through a commonscat template. ;) --Mareklug talk 07:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW I agree with you both; I am out of my element in this article, but everything I see calls it a palace not a castle. I don't have an opinion about "at"; I have not done a lot of articles with that sort of title. And thank you again Mareklug for your help with this. I might be able to take the rough translation template off with just a hair more work Elinruby (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: Are you okay with Category:Palace at Otwock Wielki? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: It is ok too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Moving to Category:Palace at Otwock Wielki. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The difference between the category Spoorzone-project and Spoorzone-project (rail) is not clear to me. It should be better specified I think. Lots of pictures can be in both categories. Tukka (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- This project has a very big urban development part wich has nothing to do with rail. In fact the Dutch Wipedia has also split the subject in two: nl:Willem van Oranjetunnel (railtunnel project) and nl:Spoorzone Delft the urban development part. Spoorzone Delft is a lokal project. The city of Delft has a big financial and political problem as the projected buildings (housing and office blocks) dont get build/sold because of the economic crisis and overcapacity in office buildings. The railway project is of a more national interest as it is part of the building of a four track railway between The Hague and Rotterdam. If you mix the two categories the rail part will be swamped by buildings, parcs, roads etc that have nothing to do with the railway. This part can better be put as a part of the city of Delft. Maybe the other part can be renamed as the rail tunnel. The official name is now "Willem van Oranjetunnel".Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Per Smiley.toerist. Natuur12 (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think renaming Spoorzone-project (rail) to Willem van Oranjetunnel is a good idea. Tukka (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps "Rail part of Spoorzone-project" would be clearer. Natubico (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- How would that be clearer than using the official name of the tunnel? I support Category:Willem van Oranjetunnel. --rimshottalk 13:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps "Rail part of Spoorzone-project" would be clearer. Natubico (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think renaming Spoorzone-project (rail) to Willem van Oranjetunnel is a good idea. Tukka (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Tukka, Smiley.toerist, Natubico, Natuur12, and Rimshot: It seems Category:Willem van Oranjetunnel was created by Bennie91 in March 2016. Does this category serve a separate purpose? If not, I would also support merging into Category:Willem van Oranjetunnel. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes they are different. The Willem van Oranjetunnel is merely about the tunnel itself, not even specificly related too the Spoorzone project while Spoorzone-project (rail) covers the tunnel during it's construction and the demolition off the old rail road track plus the station building. Natuur12 (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Natuur12: The tunnel category should be a sub-category at least, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: No consensus for a deletion/merge. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Unclear scope, all criteria are special in some way. FDMS 4 15:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Now there are only categories with unique criteria. BartekChom (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- How do you define unique criteria? --rimshottalk 20:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Such criteria that can only be applied to one category - "Category:Categories by criterion" does not make sense. BartekChom (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)I am sorry, I forgot about the signature. BartekChom (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- @BartekChom: Can you give a reason for keeping? If you just say "keep" without giving a reason, that doesn't really support keeping. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- How do you define unique criteria? --rimshottalk 20:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I do think we need a category like this but I agree in part that maybe we don't need to call it special. Maybe just Category:Categories by criterion would be sufficient. Reguyla (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Reguyla: Can you be specific about why you think we need this category? If you just say "keep" without giving a reason, that doesn't really support keeping. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep --Allforrous (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Allforrous: Can you give a reason for keeping? If you just say "keep" without giving a reason, that doesn't really support keeping. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I doubt there is a criterion that can be applied to only one category. Even if there are some, though, I don't see how having this category is helpful. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also, even if each current subcategory is currently the only one using a criterion, that doesn't mean they will remain that way. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- You removed (I have readded them) many categories from this one and the categories were cut from Category:Categories. This means thet they were hard to find and the user that would create similar category could not find them and keep our category structure consistent. If they were loose in Category:Categories, it would contain both categories like Category:People by behavior and Category:Categories by setting and this would be mess. Besides, even if you can imagine for each criterion categories that would not be subcategories of one another, they are not created yet, so if we created, e.g. Category:Categories by behavior, it would contain only one category. Therefore keeping Category:Categories by special criterion is the best solution. BartekChom (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly, it is a maintenance category Commons, is valid and useful as many others. --Allforrous (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- None of the ones I removed were the only category to use their "by" specification. I have removed them again after verifying that (again). I see no problem with creating subcategories for all these if you really want them, even the ones that really are the only one. I don't think this category is needed to find the single-use ones: you don't need to know what other categories exist to name a new one. I doubt many people look under Category:Categories before deciding on a metacat criterion, and those that do probably wouldn't understand how this nominated category would help. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Exactly,it is a maintenance category Commons, is valid and useful as many others. --Allforrous (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)- How is it a maintenance category? It doesn't indicate anything that needs to be done. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- The necessary categories must be created.--Allforrous (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- What necessary categories? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- By special criterion--Allforrous (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not following you. This whole discussion is about Category:Categories by special criterion: that already exists. If you mean a flat/group category for every criterion used by a metacat, there's no requirement to have such a category for all of those. I don't think having one for all of those would be helpful, either. There are many non-unique criteria that don't have separate categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- By special criterion--Allforrous (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- What necessary categories? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- The necessary categories must be created.--Allforrous (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- How is it a maintenance category? It doesn't indicate anything that needs to be done. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- You removed (I have readded them) many categories from this one and the categories were cut from Category:Categories. This means thet they were hard to find and the user that would create similar category could not find them and keep our category structure consistent. If they were loose in Category:Categories, it would contain both categories like Category:People by behavior and Category:Categories by setting and this would be mess. Besides, even if you can imagine for each criterion categories that would not be subcategories of one another, they are not created yet, so if we created, e.g. Category:Categories by behavior, it would contain only one category. Therefore keeping Category:Categories by special criterion is the best solution. BartekChom (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also, even if each current subcategory is currently the only one using a criterion, that doesn't mean they will remain that way. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The category is now empty. Can we now delete? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Long ago deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I suggest Category:Naval Station Guantanamo Bay should redirect to the much older Category:Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. The later category has dozens of sub-categories and sub-sub-categories. Geo Swan (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose As the move contradicts usage on external sources. The main source for U.S. Navy images is dvidshub.net. Checking this source shows:
- The use of "Guantanamo Bay Naval Base" may be down to widespread use of Gitmo (GTMO) for the base/location and possibly as slang for the task force (JTF Guantanamo).
- Though the older category may be more established on Wikimedia Commons, I believe it would be the better thing for future maintainability to harmonize on the newer category name, which then appears to fit with how most Naval Stations and Bases are named in practice by the military. --Fæ (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have three points:
- While the Navy may usually refer to the base as the Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, it is usually referred to as the "Guantanamo Bay Naval Base" -- or "Gitmo" by everyone else. I can count the number of hits too. Google "Guantanamo Bay Naval Base" -site:mil gets 128,000 hits. Google "Naval Station Guantanamo Bay" -site:mil gets 119,000 hits. However, I think both searches are getting many of the same hits as most pages include both names.
- fwiw, I think an actual check would show most of our Guantanamo images did not come from dvidshub.net, but rather came from site:southcom.mil .
- With regard to consistency -- "why is the SR-71 named the SR-71, not the RS-71?". The USAF's Reconnaisence and Surviellance planes had always had an "RS" code. The SR-71 had been developed, in secret, for ages. Industry insiders had long suspected its existence, and knew President Johnson's big surprise at an upcoming speech would be to out the completed plane to the world.
During his speech he called it the the "SR-71", not the "RS-71".
Whispering among the underlings ensued. Issue a correction to the prickly President? Or go with his name, already well-established due to the flood of interest. It was decided that if the President said it was the SR-71, the plane's name was the SR-71 -- consistency be damned.
I believe the same should hold true for Guantanamo. Consistency would be confusing. Geo Swan (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I think the only real argument is the official U.S. Navy name, and - as far as I can see - it is Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, see [5] and [6]. No "Guantanamo Bay Naval Base" exists. Cobatfor (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
As per Cobatfor, the current situation is fine. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
A questionable category, with only one member. This, that and the other (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Merge into Category:Public schools ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- A merger into Category:Public schools might work if it had a note that, in England (not necessarily the rest of the UK), a "public school" is not the same as a public school in other parts of the UK or the world. I think the problem was that some English-speaking countries use the names "public school" and "state school". In the U.S., a "public school" is a school operated by a public government; "state school" would be a rare school that the statewide government operates directly; to make it more confusing, the term "independent school" is not understood nationally, and is used by some states to specify a certain kind of public school district. Non-government-run schools are called "private schools" in the U.S. In England, an "independent school" and a "public school" are both forms of non-government-run school that is open to the public, and a "state school" is a school operated by a public government. And then, I think, "public school" and "state school" mean the same thing in Scotland. Someone created Category:Publicly funded schools in the United States, but the parent is Category:Public schools, so that makes the awkward category name specific to a country where the long name isn't needed; I'm changing that one to Category:Public schools in the United States right now, because the other name is causing people to dump U.S. schools directly into Category:Public schools when they look on HotCat. --Closeapple (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Closing as merge. Wikidata has made keeping the two concepts separate much easier. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@WikiAnika: Should be renamed to Category:Seifhennersdorf, Am Weißeweg 23 according to other individual objects in Category:Umgebinde in Seifhennersdorf. Or is this the correct naming convention and all others have to be changed? Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment For buildings only named by their addresses the most common scheme is "Category:Straßenname Nr. (Gemeinde)", which follows the scheme "Category:Straßenname (Gemeinde)" for streets. If i remember correct this is so, because it allows also categories without the part "(Gemeinde)" without breaking the general scheme (in cases of streetnames not used anywhere else).
- For "Category:Am Weißeweg 23, Seifhennersdorf" the order is ok, it only uses a comma instead of brackets. Holger1959 (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Holger1959, and suggest this category style is actually correct, and the others in Category:Umgebinde in Seifhennersdorf should be renamed accordingly. Moreover, although there are many exceptions, there's a general trend toward using a comma for disambiguation by location (e.g. Category:<street/object/place>, <location>) and using parentheses for disambiguation according to type, (e.g. Category:Birdman (rapper) vs Category:Birdman (film)) - Themightyquill (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: While discussion was ongoing, Dr. Bernd Gross de-categorized this category and created Category:Seifhennersdorf, Am Weißeweg 23 in April 2016. Allforrous redirected this category to the other in June 2016. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Merge. --Allforrous (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
This cat is now a redirect to Category:Seifhennersdorf, Am Weißeweg 23. Should this one be deleted, or kept as a redirect? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Closing as delete - not a likely redirect. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
男木島 should be transcripted as Ogishima (enwp article "Ogijima" was renamed as "w:Ogishima " recently). miya (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Similarly to Ogishima, above, 女木島 should be transcripted Megishima - enwp article "Megishima" was renamed (with my request) as "w:Megishima" by one of the members of w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan). --miya (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
One more subcategory: I request to rename Category:Ogijima Lighthouse to be Category:Ogishima Lighthouse.--miya (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment May I withdraw this discussion in order to do further research? For a different view was posted at Category talk:Ogijima: Toto-tarou wrote that though some sources say "Ogishima", there are other sources which express the island "Ogijima". I think we should make a further research to know which transcription is better for a category name and which is to be {{{category redirect}}}.--miya (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Miya: Did you ever come up with a better category name for this? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
No action needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Category talk:Stadler Rail vehicles by operator(transcluded from Category talk:Stadler Rail vehicles by operator#purpose; turned into a CFD to reach a consensus)
- All rail vehicle categories are generally named [operator] [class assigned by operator] or [operator] [type assigned by Stadler Rail] … FDMS 4 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC) modified 08:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, most categories listed carry names of the type [operator][Stadler type] and the list is sorted after the operator. For operators with many types it is possible to make a collection ot the type [operator] Stadler vehicles-- Gürbetaler (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- All rail vehicle categories are generally named [operator] [class assigned by operator] or [operator] [type assigned by Stadler Rail] … FDMS 4 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC) modified 08:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Closing as delete. Manufacturers and operators are totally different, so there is no need for an intersection category. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
passt nicht zu rest der kategorisierungen nach generationen JD {æ} 16:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be any issue. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
![[1]](http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/83/Stamp_of_Azerbaijan_530.jpg){kind=link}
Incorrect typography (en dashes should be used when indicating ranges), therefore I hereby suggest renaming this category to 1st–228th Street in Manhattan. FDMS 4 20:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep We should not use category names which cannot be easily typed on a standard typewriter. There's no Commons policy that I'm aware of that calls for the exclusive use of endashes, or which disallows the use of hyphens in category names. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, there is COM:CAT#Category_names, which says that [category] names should generally be in English. The currently title clearly is typographically incorrect, I only started this discussion because I knew you would contest the correction. FDMS 4 07:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- In what way does typography have anything to do with being in English? The category title is clearly written in English, so it completely satisfies that requirement. There is no rule in the English language which mandates the use of endashes in a range, and you've failed to cite a Commons rules which requires it as well.
In point of fact, you nominated this category because I created it (to replace Category:1st - 193rd Street in Manhattan and thereby include all the numbered streets in Manhattan), and you are unhappy with this discussion, in which you told a third party to ignore my advice about hyphens (again, without citing policy), and I suggested that they'd be better off in ignoring your advice, as I had cited common-sense reasons for doing so. This nomination is your little way of trying to get back at me - but you are clearly unable to cite a Commons policy to support your contention. I suggest this be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- STREETS IN MANHATTAN and Streets in the Manhattan are both English too, my point is that category names should have correct English names. Whether or not "1st - 228th Street in Manhattan" is correct English is not a question of project policies, but English language standards, and they are documented (by third parties) here.
- I don't deny that I found this category checking logs, which was a very reasonable thing to do given the content of your user talkpage posts. Would you be so kind as to explain why if there is no explicit policy about this matter your common sense and not mine should be followed – if possible, without any further irrelevant speculation about my "feelings" or "hidden motives"? Do you think that you are a "better user" just because you have signed up earlier than I have?
- In your unhelpful words: I had cited common-sense reasons and you are clearly unable to cite a Commons policy to support your contention. I suggest this be moved.
- FDMS 4 23:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Because "common sense" should actually make sense - such as, it should be possible for an ordinary person, sitting at an ordinary computer, with an ordinary keyboard, to actually type in the name of the category he or she wants to go to without having to resrot to special coding or other busy-work that your nonsensical method would create for them. As for "Streets in Manhattan", you don't seem to understand that Manhattan has both named and numbered streets, and this category is for the numbered ones.
And your motives - they're not hidden at all. You got pissed because a more experienced editor contradicted you, searched through my contributions until you found a category I created which used a hyphen, and then you nominated it for deletion without citing a policy supporting the nomination - and you still are not citing a policy supporting your errant nomination. You may not know this, but deletions aren't based on what you like and dislike, they're based on policy - so, please, go ahead and cite a policy which supports the deletion of this category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Erm, okay, I did believe you have experience here, looks like I've been wrong about that. Let's start at the basics: This is a categories for discussion page which purpose is to be a place to discuss (a) category/-ies. I have never suggested to delete this category. Instead, I would like to move it. This means that the page and – manually – its members will be moved to another location with a different title. After that move, a redirect will remain. This means that users getting to the current page will also get to the new page, by following the redirect.
- Please accept that there is no explicit policy supporting neither your nor my position, and even our deletion policy in many cases leaves a lot of room for individual judgement by our administrators.
- As for the purpose of the category being discussed, I thought I didn't have to write our 1st - 228th STREETS IN MANHATTAN or 1st–228th STREETS IN MANHATTAN and 1st - 228th Streets in the Manhattan or 1st–228th Streets in the Manhattan to make clear what I meant.
- FDMS 4 00:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please cite a policy which supports your position that endashes must be used instead of hyphens. A simple request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Did you read my response, especially its second paragraph? FDMS 4 00:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Absolute last chance. Please cite a policy which supports your position that endashes must be used instead of hyphens. A simple request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Been quiet for months. Time to close? Jim.henderson (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Did you read my response, especially its second paragraph? FDMS 4 00:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please cite a policy which supports your position that endashes must be used instead of hyphens. A simple request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Because "common sense" should actually make sense - such as, it should be possible for an ordinary person, sitting at an ordinary computer, with an ordinary keyboard, to actually type in the name of the category he or she wants to go to without having to resrot to special coding or other busy-work that your nonsensical method would create for them. As for "Streets in Manhattan", you don't seem to understand that Manhattan has both named and numbered streets, and this category is for the numbered ones.
- In what way does typography have anything to do with being in English? The category title is clearly written in English, so it completely satisfies that requirement. There is no rule in the English language which mandates the use of endashes in a range, and you've failed to cite a Commons rules which requires it as well.
- Support At minimum I would agree to the 1st Cat to move Category:1st-228th Street in Manhattan , Category:1st-12th Avenue in Manhattan (without ENDASH and whitespace between hyphen) -- User: Perhelion 20:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Given the official policy stated at Commons:Categories -- "Basic English characters (ISO/IEC 646) are preferred over national variants or extension character sets (for instance, 'straight' apostrophes over 'curly'), where reasonable." -- I would propose that we move all categories so that they use a minus sign instead of an en-dash. I would support Perhelion's suggestions of removing the spaces to create Category:1st-228th Street in Manhattan. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
In a close guaranteed to piss everyone off, I've renamed it to Category:Numbered streets in Manhattan. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Incorrect typography (en dashes should be used when indicating ranges), therefore I hereby suggest renaming this category to 1st–12th Avenue in Manhattan. FDMS 4 20:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
As with Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/04/Category:1st - 228th Street in Manhattan: Given the official policy stated at Commons:Categories -- "Basic English characters (ISO/IEC 646) are preferred over national variants or extension character sets (for instance, 'straight' apostrophes over 'curly'), where reasonable." -- I would propose that we move all categories so that they use a minus sign instead of an en-dash. I would support Perhelion's suggestions of removing the spaces to create Category:1st-12th Avenue in Manhattan. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Renamed to the much more logical name of Category:Numbered avenues in Manhattan. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
This category is completely absurd, it only duplicates Category:Japanese pronunciation and causes confusion. Delete Derbeth talk 05:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. Perhaps a renaming of the category could alleviate some of the confusion? I think it can be argued that there is some benefit to be had in separating out files giving the Japanese pronunciation of native Japanese words and phrases from files giving the Japanese pronunciation of other things (or non-sound files, for that matter). That was my original intent when I created this subcat (and Category:Pronunciation of Japanese phrases). But if your logic holds sway, then are the subcats Category:Pronunciation of Japanese numbers, Category:Pronunciation of names of places in Japan, and Category:Pronunciation of Japanese syllables also redundant? - dcljr (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It would make no sense to cause a subcategory to have more entries than the main category. Maybe it could make sense to create a category like 'Japanese pronunciation of loanwords'. Generally I think subcategories should be for 'exceptions' from the parent category, not for most of its content.
And yes, I think there should be no categories like any you mentioned (except syllables). Wiktionary is for categorizing words and writing a dictionary, Commons is not. Dividing pronunciation files into lots of small and irrelevant subcategories makes it only harder for users to immediately check if there is a word they want in the given language - browsing categories alphabetically becomes impossible, as some files are missing in the main category - how should a novice user know that? Sometimes when I see categories like Category:French pronunciation of words relating to fishes or Category:Hungarian pronunciation of words relating to culture (need to go 3 levels further down to see any file!) I think they are just mockery made to waste time of users looking for files and uploaders who want to place their words in some category. --Derbeth talk 06:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Glad you agree about syllables. That's what I was looking for when I came across the category in the first place. "It would make no sense to cause a subcategory to have more entries than the main category." Not sure I agree as a categorical statement. (No pun… oh, who am I kidding: pun intended.) In this case? Perhaps. I guess I have no major issue with Category:Pronunciation of Japanese words and Category:Pronunciation of Japanese phrases getting merged back into Category:Japanese pronunciation (I, personally, am not going to do it, however). I would not like to see any of the other subcats of Category:Japanese pronunciation abandoned. "irrelevant subcategories" They're only irrelevant if that's not what you're looking for. They're really relevant if that's what you're looking for. Anyone else care to weigh in? - dcljr (talk)
Upmerged. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)