Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/06
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 June 2017
The title of this category seems to be trying to serve the function already covered by Category:June in the United States. The prose description seems to be getting at the function covered by Category:June 2017 in the United States. Either way, this category is unnecessary. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Then the categories Category:May in United States etc. would be superfluous. --TheAmerikaner (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, this category is able to delete. --TheAmerikaner (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 22:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
wrong spell Pitpisit (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- I tagged it with {{Bad name}}, so an admin will delete it. @Pitpisit: For future reference, uncontroversial misspelled categories can be handled with that template instead of bringing them to cfd. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Abhisit Vejjajiva in November 2009. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Empty, and has only ever had deleted-as-copyvio DMacks (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. Former files were deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Infobox5. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Wrong name Howard61313 (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- I tagged it with {{Category renamed}}, so an admin will probably delete it soon. @Howard61313: for future reference, this kind of things can usually be handled this way without bringing it up for discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 05:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Category:Volcanic landforms in Tenerife and Category:Volcanic landforms of Tenerife seem to be kind of redundant – or if they differ it's not clear what makes them different. How do we usually handle this? El Grafo (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Usually we follow the general trends. All the location sub-categories of Category:Volcanic landforms of the Canary Islands except this one use "of", so I'd say that's the way to go. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- That also seems to be the general trend at higher levels such as Category:Volcanoes by country. Interestingly, both categories were created by User:Reykholt half a year apart, so I'd like to give her a chance to respond in case it was not just an honest accident. --El Grafo (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- This just was the kind of "honest accident". I'll just redirect them.Reykholt (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Volcanic landforms of Tenerife - Themightyquill (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Cette catégorie est manifestement le résultat d'une erreur typographique et devrait être supprimée. Le même auteur a créé immédiatement après, la catégorie Category:BMR CHMM 272 où il a placé de nombreuses images. Philippesalv (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty by Daphne Lantier. Luckily Philippesalv also gave clear reasons for deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Empty category. Should it not be deleted? Rahul Bott (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have no objection. Kalbbes (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. File:Abbottabad Cricket Stadium.jpg was deleted in January. It may have been the only contained file. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The category name is wrong. "David Ben-Gurion" (with a hyphen in the 2nd name) would be correct. But under that Name there is just one file saved. with best wishes from VINCENZO1492 11:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems correct. Seval of the sub-categories should be moved as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. -- Geagea (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it should be "of" like in similar cats on TV series from other countries, and not "in". E4024 (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your contribution and message; I stand corrected, for, as I see now, all the others use of instead of in, I failed to notice their ofs, thanks and sincerely
--Judgefloro 14:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC) (talk)
Moved to Category:Television series of the Philippines. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Empty category Robby (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 23:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevantly detailed; any of the parent cats is enough (until they get severely crowded). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. In any case, the cat is now empty, so I've tagged it with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 17:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
empty category, same as it's parent category (as the iw for Guus Janssen on en correpsonds to Guuss Jannssen (componist) on nl-wikipedia Robby (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, please delete this category ! I created it, because of no results in my recherche in Wiki for a solution to the case (and the instruction for the right format/Wiki-'command' speach of adressing the 'filled' category wasn't findable), that different national Wikipedias named their article about the same musician in different ways and 'commonscat' didn't work - this was only a 'first help'-way out of that problem. Meanwhile (after hours) I found a notice how the working Wiki-'command' of adressing the right ('filled') WikiMedia-/Commons-category is, in old examples I saved in earlier years as a personal note.
- Thank you for your helpful resonance, and the carefull way of it. Would be helpfull to delete the now unnescessary WikiMedia-/Commons-Category! - --Annamarie Ursula (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 23:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete this caetgory because Category:Springs of the Czech Republic is already exists. BukhariSaeed (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Nominated by creator. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see the necessity of this giant category. 38902 files from the web categorised by the person who uploaded them? Not needed, no improvement. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. It is a user category, but one can just go to Special:ListFiles/Kobac to see this user's uploads. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- We have loads of "uploaded by" categories. Are you suggesting we delete them all, or that we have a cap on the number of files in such a category? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest deleting them all. I can't think of a reason for them, but I'm willing to listen to people who can. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Totally useless categories. They all should go to the GBRC (Great Byte Recycling Center) in the sky. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest deleting them all. I can't think of a reason for them, but I'm willing to listen to people who can. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- We have loads of "uploaded by" categories. Are you suggesting we delete them all, or that we have a cap on the number of files in such a category? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss all of them, I would suggest you tag all of them with this CfD, or bring this discussion to the village pump. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll move the discussion over to the VP. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep per Rudolph Buch, Jmabel, Fæ, and LPfi. I find such cats useful. — Jeff G. ツ 20:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Per quick poll @ the Com:VP: Too many folks find these categories useful. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
because it is so offensive 31.58.212.146 08:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: Not a valid reason. --Yann (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
It supposed to be NN graves, not NN Graves Darekk2 (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Closing, cat has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Category to be deleted. I made an error with an ) at the end. Tangopaso (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Done Hystrix (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Cat has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Should this empty category be deleted? Another Believer (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Done Hystrix (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Closing: cat has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
To be deleted, replaced by Ketting Beethoven9 (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
no longer needed Kopiersperre (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Done Hystrix (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Empty category 95.87.235.200 06:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 18:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Created by myself in error. I missed the existence of a category covering the same place named Halton-on-Lune Malcolma (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Done Hystrix (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Hystrix. - Themightyquill (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Empty category, should be a gallery. Achim (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Revoked. I'll tag it as {{Prospective category}}. --Achim (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Revoked. --Achim (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
siehe auch:
Natura 2000 in Styria - Style - Darstellung Nxr-at (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Khan and Goldsmith BukhariSaeed (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Empty cat. Could be deleted. --E4024 (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't even figure out how this category can technically exist separately from Category:Stop signs with "섯". The titles seem exactly the same. What's going on? Themightyquill (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- There's something different about the quote marks. I did a test (which I did not save) where I replaced one category with the other on a file, then displayed the difference: the Asian character(s) didn't change, but the quote marks did. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- We have two cats with only one file in one of them? Ow! Delete the empty one and close this discussion, please. --E4024 (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty by Taivo while still under discussion. Hopefully the right one was deleted. At least we only have one now. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Category was renamed to fix typo. Please delete it. Thanks. Holy Goo (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I tagged it with {{Category renamed}}, so it will probably be deleted soon. @Holy Goo: this kind of thing can usually be handled with that template without bringing it here for discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 23:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I didn't know that. I looked everywhere for a way to tag a category for speedy deletion but couldn't find anything, so I brought it here. Thanks for helping me. Holy Goo (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
empty and imprecise Ham II (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete Originally created by an anonymous IP with Category:21st-century people of Wales as its parent (??). This doesn't make sense at all. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Luzhniki Stadium that contained four files (now in Category:Views of Luzhniki Stadium from Sparrow Hills). Retired electrician (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Herrenstraße 7 (Memmingen) Taterian (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Empty cat. The other one is a user page(?) --E4024 (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Kongruent zur Kategorie: Category:Herrenstraße 7 (Memmingen), kann daher gelöscht werden. -- Grüße aus Memmingen (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Nominating for deletion, since it's empty and a duplicate. --ghouston (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The disambiguation of the individual street categories isn't part of the official street name and as such should use the English version (Cologne) per COM:LP or no disambiguation at all where unnecessary. FDMS 4 12:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Weaksupport. Note: I noticed that User:HReuter has removed the notice from some of the affected categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)- @Auntof6: Weak? FDMS 4 15:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- You know, I'm not sure why I said "weak". I do notice that some of the qualifiers aren't just "Köln"; some of those may be appropriate as they are. Also, the empty ones should be deleted.--Auntof6 (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- All of Cologne's subdivision categories I checked only include Köln- on Commons – for example, Köln-Sülz is called simply Sülz on both the German and the English Wikipedia (on the former with a disambig that would be unnecessary in street categories). Renaming those is probably a matter for a different CFD, so we could indeed keep the current names of street categories with subdivision disambigs for now. FDMS 4 16:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Dear all, pls allow some explanation (although at this point only provisional, as I am on a trip abroad for one more week):
- When catagorizing various Cologne-related street/building images, I noticed rather a chaos in category names relating to streets in Cologne, mainly of four sorts:
- merely the name of the street (e.g. Category:Clever Straße, just as if this particular "Clever Straße" in Cologne were the only one of its kind all over the world; quite a few of these occurring),
- name of the Street + (Cologne) (also quite a few),
- name of the street + (Köln) (the vast majority, developed over >10 years without anyone objecting), and
- name of the street + (Köln-<name of quarter>) (for disambig of multiple occurrences within Cologne, also quite a few in place and even more missing where there should have been a disambig but wasn't).
- Clearly, this situation is/was both impractical and also in violation of your referenced guideline Commons:Categories#Category_names "Creating intermingled category structures in different languages would only make things worse."
- So, after reference to other cities and consultation with users active in this field, I proposed a consistent naming scheme that could be practically achieved from the present state with an economically justifyable amount of handiwork, and duly posted my proposal where I thought fit, viz. at Category_talk:Streets_in_Cologne (albeit in German as I felt this was mainly of interest within the German-speaking community -- if so required, I'll be pleased to also translate it into English).
- As over several weeks I did not receive any (negative) comment there, I considered this as tacit approval and continued implementing my proposal, so far checking/correcting the majority of Cologne streets and still quite a few to go (at considerable expense of time as you may imagine), when to my surprise this late objection was raised.
- To summarize, I feel we can all agree that (in order of importance):
- a consistent naming scheme should be pursued,
- a disambig at least by city name is practically advisable (or plainly necessary) as guidance where that street is situated, and
- a further disambig by city name + quarter likewise where there is more that one street of the same name in town, as is typical for large cities grown over time.
- The open question in my view boils down to whether here it should be Cologne or Köln everywhere, and here my choice of Köln was for practical reasons only, as mentioned above. If someone has a way to automatically change all occurrences of Köln in the relevant places to Cologne, I'll be happy to follow, but until such time I would politely request to allow the present proposal to be carried through. --
- Thanks, also for your patience to follow up unto this point, HReuter (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Enjoy your trip, I'm sure this matter can wait until you return. FDMS 4 16:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- As one of the photopraphers of Cologne I fully agree with HReuter. In the past I have created a lot of categories like "Streetname (Köln)" or "Streetname (Köln-<district>)". The latter in case the streetname is not unique in Cologne. And that happens very often. I would like to avoid an inconsistency mix of "Streetname (Cologne)" and "Streetname (Cologne-<district>)" because, for example, "Streetname (Cologne-Altstadt-Süd)" with "Altstadt-Süd" as official district name, sounds very weird to me. But I am open for a better, consistent solution. Raymond 07:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be "Streetname (Altstadt-Süd, Cologne)" instead. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Using city disambigs even when the street name in question is unique isn't exactly in accordance with policy, but given that there is precedence (including my hometown, in fact) I could absolutely live with that. As for the case User:Raymond mentioned I'd suggest using only the district name, e.g. Streename (Altstadt-Süd) or the disambig suggested by Auntof6 where that makes more sense. FDMS 4 16:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be "Streetname (Altstadt-Süd, Cologne)" instead. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- All of Cologne's subdivision categories I checked only include Köln- on Commons – for example, Köln-Sülz is called simply Sülz on both the German and the English Wikipedia (on the former with a disambig that would be unnecessary in street categories). Renaming those is probably a matter for a different CFD, so we could indeed keep the current names of street categories with subdivision disambigs for now. FDMS 4 16:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- You know, I'm not sure why I said "weak". I do notice that some of the qualifiers aren't just "Köln"; some of those may be appropriate as they are. Also, the empty ones should be deleted.--Auntof6 (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Weak? FDMS 4 15:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Dear all, we have raised the matter at Lokal_K among users who have contributed a large number of files related to Cologne streets (mainly photos of buildings and Stolpersteine) and who frequently handle these categories, including User:Raymond, User:1971markus, User:Geolina163. There was consensus that the naming scheme must be fit for the job (e.g. enable disambiguation) and should be consistent. Given these indispensable criteria, we are open to most variants proposed in the above discussion, viz.:
- Streetname (Cologne) (standard case) + Streetname (Altstadt-Süd, Cologne) (for disambiguation)
- Streetname (Cologne) (standard case) + Streetname (Cologne-Altstadt-Süd) (for disambiguation)
- Streetname (Köln) (standard case) + Streetname (Altstadt-Süd, Köln) (for disambiguation)
- Streetname (Köln) (standard case) + Streetname (Köln-Altstadt-Süd) (for disambiguation)
We found all these variants basically fit for the purpose. The following, however, was found to be less practical:
- Streetname (standard case) + Streetname (Altstadt-Süd) (for disambiguation) (both without city name):
unmotivated preference given to the city implied but not stated, in particular if later a street of the same name occurs in another city; also hard to guess outright
So we would advocate:
In the short run, if only for economic reasons, continue using scheme #4 (which had initially been selected to minimize handiwork because most category names already adhered to it in the past) and consistently handle any categories in this context that have not yet been examined.
In the long run -- i.e. as soon as there is an automatic mechanism to transform between schemes #1-4 including files and subcategories -- openly rediscuss the selection, while observing that #4 uses the official municipal wording.
We hope this proposal will meet consent or at least toleration, so we can complete checking the remaining Cologne street name categories. Thanks -- HReuter (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Support #4 - Official and Postal spelling... --1971markus ⇒ Laberkasten ... 22:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)- Support #4 but I can live with #1 too. Raymond 11:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- As in the course of three weeks there have been no objections nor new arguments, let's consider the matter closed and settle on #4. Thanks to all of you for your attention and consideration, HReuter (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- @HReuter: Apologies for the late response and thanks for the input. I disagree that there is clear consensus in favour of option #4 – category titles are not postal addresses, otherwise we wouldn't be putting the Cologne/Köln in brackets in the first place. Also, while of course a technical possibility, using the German version of the city name instead of the (almost) equally established English version of it would not be in line with the language policy. Therefore, of course with regards only to the long run as you explained, I'd prefer using option #1. FDMS 4 22:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, @FDMS4: In the meantime (i.e. until there is a way to bulk convert from #4 to #1), is there a way to automatically remove all those Category for discussion templates stuck on most of the 500+ Cologne street categories, or would you suggest to leave them in place? --HReuter (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- @HReuter: I think once it can be said that we've reached consensus here (have we already?) this CFD should be closed and then we should list the categories at COM:CDC accordingly. The CFD tags can easily be removed the way I added them (AWB script), if you think we have reached consensus already I could do so tomorrow. FDMS 4 19:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- @FDMS4: In my understanding, we have reached consensus in that none of the participants in this discussion objects to continue, for the time being, consistently according to option #4; later on the category names can then be converted to option #1, once there is a fully automatic way to do so (or someone takes it upon them to do the required handiwork). As you are familiar with the technicalities (and I am not), I would suggest you close the CFD and remove the tags when convenient for you. Thanks, HReuter (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- @HReuter: I think once it can be said that we've reached consensus here (have we already?) this CFD should be closed and then we should list the categories at COM:CDC accordingly. The CFD tags can easily be removed the way I added them (AWB script), if you think we have reached consensus already I could do so tomorrow. FDMS 4 19:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, @FDMS4: In the meantime (i.e. until there is a way to bulk convert from #4 to #1), is there a way to automatically remove all those Category for discussion templates stuck on most of the 500+ Cologne street categories, or would you suggest to leave them in place? --HReuter (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- @HReuter: Apologies for the late response and thanks for the input. I disagree that there is clear consensus in favour of option #4 – category titles are not postal addresses, otherwise we wouldn't be putting the Cologne/Köln in brackets in the first place. Also, while of course a technical possibility, using the German version of the city name instead of the (almost) equally established English version of it would not be in line with the language policy. Therefore, of course with regards only to the long run as you explained, I'd prefer using option #1. FDMS 4 22:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- As in the course of three weeks there have been no objections nor new arguments, let's consider the matter closed and settle on #4. Thanks to all of you for your attention and consideration, HReuter (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Closed per above. (Once it is ready I will post a list of category rename tasks (({{Move cat}}) on the category talkpage before making a request on COM:CDC to make sure it is in accordance with the outcome of this CFD.) FDMS 4 17:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Parallel category structure in French as subcat of Category:Shipbuilding. The language in commons for Categories is English, not French (and not any other language). Only in special cases for example names an other language is used. This category and the listed subcategories should be merged into Category:Shipbuilding Zaccarias (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Consensus to merge. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I think this category is only ever going to apply to one person, and there's no reason why its parent categories shouldn't apply to that individual rather than have a separate aggregator category- the logic suggest that we have categories for all people named "William John", for example. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Thats the systematic, yes. We should have categories like Category:William John (given name). As we allready have Category:Peter Paul (given name) or a lot of other more. --JuTa 14:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
remove the disambiguation.Category:Peter Paul (given name) exists only because there are several persons named "Peter Paul" with their own category. As long as there is only one such category, there is no need for a disambiguation (given name). De728631 (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Its not a disambiguation, its a normal category like millions others with only one entry. --JuTa 14:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think if a category intersection (which this is) results in one entry, and will only ever result in one entry, it's pointless having it, because any search on the names will go directly to that entry. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Its not a disambiguation, its a normal category like millions others with only one entry. --JuTa 14:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you look to i.e. Category:Maria (given name), there are a lot of similar cases. It would be hard to manage it otherwise. To which surname Category do you put people in with double given names? Do you always have to search if there are another people with the same double given name? And if you find only one and a month or 2 years later another person appears, you would have to recategorize your "old" person. How you can check that (easily)? --JuTa 15:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- The problem lies not with single names, which I think make sense, but lower down the tree. But I see, for example, that we have Category:John William (given name) but not Category:William John (given name), so we're not even consistent one level down. Surely we should have both? And what do we do when we get to Category:Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus (given name)? There's only Mozart and surely we have long passed the point of usefulness by then. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Delete Ok, now I see that it's not a disambiguation but a given name consisting of three elements. Anyhow, I think this particular combination is so rare that we don't need a category for it. Category:Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin will automatically turn up if you search for "Augustus Welby Northmore" or even "Augustus Welby", so we don't need a pointless parent category just for this one given name. De728631 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict)
- The problem lies not with single names, which I think make sense, but lower down the tree. But I see, for example, that we have Category:John William (given name) but not Category:William John (given name), so we're not even consistent one level down. Surely we should have both? And what do we do when we get to Category:Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus (given name)? There's only Mozart and surely we have long passed the point of usefulness by then. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you look to i.e. Category:Maria (given name), there are a lot of similar cases. It would be hard to manage it otherwise. To which surname Category do you put people in with double given names? Do you always have to search if there are another people with the same double given name? And if you find only one and a month or 2 years later another person appears, you would have to recategorize your "old" person. How you can check that (easily)? --JuTa 15:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Complete nonsense, as well as category "Van" (as a matter of fact , just deleted) which is not a surname but only an article which Dutch don't capitalize (i.e. van Basten, van Hanegem, van Halen) while Belgians normally do (ie Van Der Elst, Van Dyck, and so on). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat)
- As I believe I said already in the Robert Falcon CFD, I have no problem with these multiple given name categories when applied to multiple people who go by multiple given names (e.g. Billy Bob Thorton could go in Category:Billy Bob (given name) if there was more than one notable person with such a name). In the case of largely unused middle names, I'm generally okay with the person being added to each individual given name category (e.g. Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin could be in Category:Augustus (given name), Category:Welby (given name) and Category:Northmore (given name) where more than one such name exists.) Otherwise, it seems not at all useful for the reasons described above by others. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom & Blackcat. Silly category. Wikimandia (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
No strong reason given in defense of the category, and no new people with that series of given names has appeared since June. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Possibly it should be merged into Category:Riverboats. There is no clear difference - I thought, that boats should be smaler, but Wikipedia has an article Riverboat for river vessels regardless of size Pibwl (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Redirected to Category:Riverboats. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Suggest this category is deleted. The Vale of Glamorgan is a county on the south coast of Wales with no mountains, few if any hills ...and no cairns - well certainly none of the pictures categoried here are in the VoG. There was some issue with the automated categorisation of South/Mid Wales photos which led to many of them being mistakenly put in a Vale of Glamorgan category. Time for this category to go! Sionk (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- If none of the files in the category should be there, they should all be properly categorized. Once that's done, the category will be empty and can be deleted as such, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you look at any one of the pictures in the category, they are already also in the correct category, but with the incorrect addition of Category:Cairns in the Vale of Glamorgan. Sionk (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Sionk: There are a few left that still need proper categorization. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Cheers for the reminder. I've properly categorised the remaining three pics. Sionk (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The content of this category is not seasons. There are a number of individual files, and a category for snow. Snow is not a season, and isn't even confined to a specific season. Everything in this category should be moved to Category:Einsiedeln. Auntof6 (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Why does this category exist? How is it different from its subcat Category:First Nations in British Columbia? Currently, it has no other content besides that subcat. Seems to me we should just eliminate this level of the hierarchy; optionally, this could become a redirect rather than be deleted outright.. Jmabel ! talk 02:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not Canadian and may be ignorant of the cultural considerations, but the cat seems unnecessary to me as well. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- The category has since been moved to Category:Indigenous peoples in British Columbia. It could theoretically contain the Métis Nation British Columbia who are considered Indigenous but not First Nations, but I don't see any such files on commons to justify that. If it was simply Category:Indigenous people in British Columbia (no s) it could contain various Indigenous individuals who now live in BC, rather than nations/peoples -- say, a visiting Inuit or a now-resident Maori -- but that's not the case. I'd suggest either a deletion or a redirect to Category:First Nations in British Columbia for the time being. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? If there is consensus that it is, then we should take most food images (thousands) into this cat. E4024 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Most food images show food both before and after cooking? I'm not sure I understand. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Example, File:Seimaiki 01.jpg is a comparison picture of "Before and after image".
- But, I understand that you say somehow...(=Most or not). It may or may not be.
So, I agree to delete this Category.It doesn't matter.I'll leave it to you. --Benzoyl (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)- I changed my opinion. If it's possible, Keep. --Benzoyl (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- I changed my opinion. If it's possible,
- The definition of this category may be ambiguous. (before cooking / be cooking / after cooking) --Benzoyl (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure if I understand. I've added several additional images that show food both before and after cooking. Perhaps the category needs a better name, but it seems to serve a clear purpose. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Please find a better name then. Maybe you can also find a way to relate images like File:Tarte aux cerises avant cuisson - 20040323.jpeg and File:Tarte aux cerises - 20040323.jpeg with this classification. --E4024 (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: The scope of the category seems logical and straight-forward to me, so I don't see any reason to delete it. I wonder if perhaps the original nominator (E4024) is inferring that it is intended for both "before" images and "after" images, whereas the category appears to have been created to house photographs that show both "before" and "after" states within the same image (as in File:MongolianBuuz.JPG). Maybe the category name should be modified with hyphens to Category:Before-and-after images of cooking to make it slightly clearer? --DAJF (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, DAJF That sounds better to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think too, "Before-and-after" is better phrase. I'm sorry to everyone, for this erroneous or misleading Category name. --Benzoyl (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support DAJF's suggestion. I was about to suggest adding dashes, then realised it had already been proposed. It's pretty clear the intention of the category is to include both 'before' and 'after' in the same image. Sionk (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose it could be Category:Food before and after cooking. --ghouston (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Food before and after cooking is also good phrase. It's up to you. --Benzoyl (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose it could be Category:Food before and after cooking. --ghouston (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Before-and-after images of cooking. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't get the idea. What's special about views of mountains in Nepal when we already have a category where you can view Mountains of Nepal? Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. I can't see any difference between the images in this category and many of those in the parent category. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Merged with category:Mountains of Nepal and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Not a useful category, created by bot in the format "minerals of (location)", I have moved the images to Category:Minerals of Cochise County, Arizona, which would be parent cat. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Not a helpful category, created by a bot in the format of "minerals of (location)", I have moved the images to Category:Minerals of Globe-Miami District, which is a parent category. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Would have copyedited this to "Minerals of the Patagonia Mountains", but it should be deleted instead because it is an unhelpful category created by a bot which contained only one image; I have recategorized the one image to Category:Minerals of Santa Cruz County, Arizona, a parent cat. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Contained one image, moved the image to parent category Category:Minerals of Pima County, Arizona. If a substantial number of images are uploaded we can recreate the cat. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Contained one image, I moved the image to parent category Category:Minerals of Pima County, Arizona. If a substantial number of images are uploaded we can recreate the cat. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Would have copyedited to make it Minerals of the Buckskin Mountains, but it should be deleted instead: it is a bot-created category with a single image; I have recategorized the image into Category:Minerals of La Paz County, Arizona, a parent cat. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Would have copyedited to make it Minerals of the Dome Rock Mountains, but it should be deleted instead: it is a bot-created category with a single image; I have recategorized the image into Category:Minerals of La Paz County, Arizona, a parent cat. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Would have copyedited to make it Minerals of the Harquahala Mountains, but it should be deleted instead: it is a bot-created category with a single image; I have recategorized the image into Category:Minerals of La Paz County, Arizona, a parent cat Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Bot-created cat, nonspecific and not helpful; had two images which I reclassified into parent cat Category:Minerals of Yavapai County, Arizona Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Bot-created cat, nonspecific and not helpful; had two images which I reclassified into parent cat Category:Minerals of Yavapai County, Arizona. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Bot-created cat, nonspecific and not helpful (is it from that mountain or not?); had one image which I reclassified into parent cat Category:Minerals of Clark County, Nevada. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Bot-created cat, nonspecific and hard to figure out according to the notes, contained one image which I have put in a parent cat. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Would have copyedited to "Minerals of the Trinity Mountains", but should be deleted instead; bot-created cat, not useful, Trinity Mountains (Nevada) doesn't even have a cat of its own, recategorized the only two images into parent cat Category:Minerals of Pershing County, Nevada. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Awkward, bot-created cat, moved the single image to both parent categories. Unlikely redirect. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I closed this and this CFD without realizing there were a huge number of identical categories. Can we move them all to "people" instead of persons"? Themightyquill (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds right to me. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Ruthven: Could you please help with this? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 20:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Ruthven: Forgive me for editing a closed cfd, but this is not done. Category:Group portraits by number of persons has not been renamed, nor have its subcats (and sub-subcats, etc.) that specify "persons". --Auntof6 (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I am travelling right now and I'll not be able to check until Thursday. However, I gave the commands to the Commons Delinker, due to Mediawiki issues in dealing with the queue of requests (it happens often lately) this can take some time. Eventually the cats will be moved. --Ruthven (msg) 12:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
This category should be moved to Category:Born This Way Ball per the actual article name. IndianBio (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Moved to Category:Born This Way Ball. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Can we rename this to Category:Top (software)? The software isn't the main meaning of the word "top", and the cat keeps getting files for things like mountaintops. Auntof6 (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Absolutely. It's strange that Category:Top (position) would need disambiguation, but this software I've never heard of does not. Should we turn Category:Top into a disambig page or just delete it? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- A disambig, I think. This page lists several things that a disambig could include, and there could be others. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Strong support of move of software, the software clearly isn't the primary meaning by either measure. 
Weak support move of Category:Top (position) to base name, in part because w:Top refers to Category:Spinning tops. In this case the DAB at the base name is probably the best option. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguated and new category created at Category:Top (software). - Themightyquill (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Should be renamed to Roof Garden (band) or something else. Is mistaken with category:Roof Gardens Hiddenhauser (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable. The capitalized and singular title might not be enough to help guide people correctly. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Roof Garden (band) - Themightyquill (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The category should be moved to Category:Alexander Kudryavtsev, as Alexander is the correct spelling. Denhud (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. Some languages seem to spell it as Alexandr but no one spells it Alexandre. (Maybe there was confusion with Alexandre Krasnoroutskiy?) - Themightyquill (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Moved per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
This category was created for File:Pizza in Korea.jpg. The file has been recategorized to the existing Category:Pizzas in South Korea where it belongs. There was no country called "Korea" at the time that the image was made and I doubt it that historical images will surface of pizzas made in the Korea that existed until 1945. The category is therefore useless and should be deleted. Takeaway (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- You're right, I hadn't noticed there was already a category. I second the deletion request. --Chiyako92 (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreement from category creator. Empty category. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I created it by typo Jim.henderson (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Done Hystrix (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. I must be more careful in future. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
no cat and photo Pitpisit (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Please look at the pics in this cat and opine on the title. Most pictures are of fishing boats. When you take them out, there is little or no need for this cat. E4024 (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: It’s good categorization. What’s needed, instead of thwarting attempts of better categorization, is to have covered in Commons other locations worldwide where hagfish is sundried — or, better, is to get properly categorized what we already have here. (The fact that you can also see fishing boats on photos of drying fish is trivial: Go complain that you see too many fingers in Category:Rings (jewellery) and therefore that category is not needed.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: I really do not understand the reasoning behind the need to discuss this category. Dalatias licha drying in Câmara de Lobos used to be traditionally made on dry docked fishing boats, most commonly one called "Sá Carneiro". It's mind boggling why would someone want to remove this category because a boat is used to dry the fish. the categorization is much more important now that Dalatias licha catching has been recently forbidden by the European Union, so those images under that category are of significant historical importance. Keep, of course.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Kept as per Tuválkin and DarwIn. --rimshottalk 23:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Category name should be in English. Maybe just copy everything to the parent category, since the names seem to mean the same thing. Auntof6 (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Wikiexpedition to Chornohora Mountains a few days ago. --rimshottalk 23:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The category should be merged into Category:Soybean sprouts, as kongnamul is just a Korean word for "soybean sprouts". Talitiainen (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Soybean sprouts in Korea or Category:Soybean sprouts in Korean cuisine ? - Themightyquill (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: That sounds like a better option! --Talitiainen (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Close: cat has been redirected to Category:Soybean sprouts. @Tisanophile: Please don't remove CfD templates as you did here unless the discussion is closed. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I am not at all certain what User:Visaswises inends here, but creating a new category tree unilaterally without discussion is not good. Also note that User categories must be in User space, not in the main category space. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for doing this without a diskussion. My intention is to have usergroups, that may work on certain themes by adddng themselves to the groups category. If there is another way or this can be done in the users namespace, ok. Visaswises (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I still don't understand. Why would I add myself to Category:Usergroup Visaswises? Are you thinking about something similar to WP:EN's WikiProjects? I'm not sure that would be useful. On WP, people work together on articles and often teams work together to create articles on related subjects. Here, though, there is little reason to work together because each photograph is essentially independent of all others.
- I suggest that we delete these now and, after you have gotten considerably more experience on Commons (here since May 28, 2017, with 707 edits), you come back and raise the issue in front of the community, perhaps at The Village Pump. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Same as User:Jameslwoodward. You seem determined to create your own parallel category trees, like you have just tried again for "Unidentified" subjects, but this is not good: please try to first understand existing structures better and then to raise discussion.--LamBoet (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Making a new category subtree unilaterally isn’t a bad thing per se… but one should certainly not do it after such recent history with respect to categories. The user in question has good media contributions, but their categorization effort appears to be a vanity-only thing, which has to be discouraged. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted; we have no need for this. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Once moved, Category:Great Lakes should disambiguate the two groups of lakes. Geo Swan (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- The North American ones seem to be called just "en:Great Lakes", and the African ones are called en:African Great Lakes. I'm OK with qualifying the category for the North American ones (and making this unqualified cat a disambiguation), but it should be called Category:Great Lakes (North America) because "North America" isn't part of their name. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Better to leave it as is. The majority of WP's don't use any disambiguation, so it seems to be really the primary use. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Robson seems to be at least one location (British Columbia?) and the category seems to be used in this way. But it is defined as a brand and a kayak manufacturer. Zaccarias (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- There is also Category:Mount Robson, which appears to be the location you mention. Maybe this cat should be a dab, which could include Category:Robson (surname). --Auntof6 (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per nom, only 1 of the images appear to refer to the kayak and WP has a DAB with quite a few meanings. Category:Robson (kayak) would appear to be the correct target per Category:Kayak manufacturers. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Category changed to a disambiguation. Also Category:Robson (kayak) created. --Zaccarias (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The category should be named Category:Shoe design and listed under Category:Textile design Problem with Category:Textile design: This category is defined by it's root categories as artificial work. There is no linking somehow to possible functional or even engineering aspects of textile design. Such aspects are just ignored. "Shoe construction" fore sure is not appropriate because as far as I know the English language only buildings, structures or large machines get constructed. Zaccarias (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- en:Goodyear welt says "Goodyear welted construction is still considered one of the finest methods of shoe construction". See also the bottom of en:Template:Footwear. The RedBurn (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oops, my mistake. Sorry to bother I am just aiming to maintain/create a systematic category system. I would like to keep this thread open to get some other opinions. --Zaccarias (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- I guess several images, especially those depicting dissected shoes, display how the shoes are physically made (constructed) as much as how they show how they were designed. I don't see a big problem with it. - Themightyquill (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
No further action needed. Mistake by me to start a not necessary discussion. Agreement upon category definition. --Zaccarias (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
A expressão "Lisbon City Council" é uma tradução infeliz para "Câmara Municipal de Lisboa". Sugiro um mais claro e mais genérico, bem como mais fiel, "Lisbon Municipal Government" (ou "Municipal Government of Lisbon"). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- That makes sense to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Disagree I don't know if the "translation" is the best, but that's what Câmara Municipal de Lisboa uses to describe themselves in English, and has widespread and generalized use. The translations you propose have very limited use, if at all.-- Darwin Ahoy! 06:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Lá vamos nós… Widespread use também tem a crença que a Terra é plana, e daí? E desde quando é que aceitamos cegamente aquilo que uma instituição se chama a si própria, noutra língua? Mesmo que fosse uma decisão oficial da C.M.L. e não um qq improviso de quem traduziu o texto (fatalmente baseado, lá está, no tal widespread use…) "City Council" para traduzir "Câmara Municipal" está errado em meia dúzia de maneiras diferentes: É inglês à Zezé Camarinha: "concelho" = "council" — muta fácel, put a cream on. E será que todas as 308 câmaras municipais usam a mesma expressão para se auto-designarem em inglês? (Coisa que para mim nada importa para escolher uma tradução, mas haja critério!) E se fôr uma vila, já passa a ser "Town Council"? E como é a tradução em widespead use e/ou used by themselves de "Assembleia Municipal"? (Pois, não há.) Desta última, a minha tradução é "Municipal Parliament", que tal como "Municipal Government" é descritiva e simples. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: Aqui no Funchal é "city council" também. E o "council" não é de concelho, mas de conSelho. Mas se a coisa é assim tão controversa, o melhor mesmo é não traduzir coisa nenhuma e deixar como "Câmara Municipal de Lisboa".-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Lá vamos nós… Widespread use também tem a crença que a Terra é plana, e daí? E desde quando é que aceitamos cegamente aquilo que uma instituição se chama a si própria, noutra língua? Mesmo que fosse uma decisão oficial da C.M.L. e não um qq improviso de quem traduziu o texto (fatalmente baseado, lá está, no tal widespread use…) "City Council" para traduzir "Câmara Municipal" está errado em meia dúzia de maneiras diferentes: É inglês à Zezé Camarinha: "concelho" = "council" — muta fácel, put a cream on. E será que todas as 308 câmaras municipais usam a mesma expressão para se auto-designarem em inglês? (Coisa que para mim nada importa para escolher uma tradução, mas haja critério!) E se fôr uma vila, já passa a ser "Town Council"? E como é a tradução em widespead use e/ou used by themselves de "Assembleia Municipal"? (Pois, não há.) Desta última, a minha tradução é "Municipal Parliament", que tal como "Municipal Government" é descritiva e simples. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: Agreed with "Municipal Government of Lisbon". -- Darwin Ahoy! 13:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Category:Calming a storm Jonund (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, they should be merged. Not sure about the best name though: Wikipedia uses en:Calming the storm. I think I'd prefer Category:Jesus Calms the Storm though, as that's how the section seems to be called in the bible (see first 3 references in the WP article). Also it makes it much easier to grasp what the category is about: since it both current categories are lacking a description, I had to guess from their parent categories. --El Grafo (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think Category:Jesus Calms the Storm or Category:Jesus calms the storm or Category:Jesus calming the storm would be better too. That said, few of the categories in Category:Miracles of Jesus Christ follow that pattern. I'll tag a few and hopefully we can get additional input. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it gets more complicated. The incident differs according to whether it's in Luke or Matthew- in Luke 8, Jesus is asleep in the boat, and in Matthew 14 he walks out to the boat having been ashore. This may not make a difference except how it's depicted, e.g. on stained glass windows. But there should be an initial merge, with later split if needed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, merge and rename - Category:Jesus Calms the Storm is fine. Do these nominations ever get resolved? Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Jesus walking on water and stilling the storm are two different stories. After Jesus had walked on water and raised the sinking Peter, the storm abated, but that seems more like an incidental remark, and it isn't said explicitly that Jesus made it abate. --Jonund (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, merge and rename - Category:Jesus Calms the Storm is fine. Do these nominations ever get resolved? Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it gets more complicated. The incident differs according to whether it's in Luke or Matthew- in Luke 8, Jesus is asleep in the boat, and in Matthew 14 he walks out to the boat having been ashore. This may not make a difference except how it's depicted, e.g. on stained glass windows. But there should be an initial merge, with later split if needed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think Category:Jesus Calms the Storm or Category:Jesus calms the storm or Category:Jesus calming the storm would be better too. That said, few of the categories in Category:Miracles of Jesus Christ follow that pattern. I'll tag a few and hopefully we can get additional input. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: OK, it's clear that the walking on water and calming the storm are separate incidents, and consensus seems to be for calming the storm, so I'll merge "stilling the storm" into the renamed "calming the storm" with a redirect. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Ruff tuff cream puff merged this fairly sparse and comparably new cat into Category:Stoppers (container components) and Category:Laboratory equipment. If we wanted a subcat by material or use or material+use, this would not be the correct capitalization anyway DMacks (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Since Category:Corks and Category:Bottle stoppers exist, you might say Category:Stoppers (container components) has already been subcategorized by materials and use. But I agree that the style should be improved. Category:Laboratory rubber stoppers? Or Category:Stoppers (laboratory equipment)? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Good point. Category:Stoppers (laboratory equipment) seems in keeping with other subcats of Category:Laboratory equipment, which could also pick up corks and plastic lids as subcats. Or else Category:Rubber stoppers, which could then go as subcat in the stoppers and lab-equipment cats. DMacks (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Stoppers (laboratory equipment) - Themightyquill (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
This category and its descendants Category:Canidae scrotum, Category:Dog scrotum, and Category:Human scrotum should have "scrotum" be renamed to a plural, either "scrotums" or the more Latin "scrota", because our categories of files should always have plural names or we limit them. — Jeff G. ツ 01:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Plural is a gereral rule, therefore simply do it if you wat to do the work. But if you rename the categories do it for all in the same way. Kersti (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 and Kersti Nebelsiek: Thanks. There are more descendant cats now (Category:Angiokeratoma of the scrotum and Category:Histopathology of angiokeratoma of the scrotum), so I have tagged them. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: The two categories you mention do not need to be plural, because scrotum is used as a modifier. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: You're right. I think we're ready to close. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: The two categories you mention do not need to be plural, because scrotum is used as a modifier. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 and Kersti Nebelsiek: Thanks. There are more descendant cats now (Category:Angiokeratoma of the scrotum and Category:Histopathology of angiokeratoma of the scrotum), so I have tagged them. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted categories, and made redirects from Category:Scrota to Category:Scrotums. - 19:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
We should either rename this cat as "before and after" or remove it from the "before and after" category. E4024 (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Given that the contents are all "before and after" images, I think a rename makes more sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Before-and-after photographs of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Poorly defined category. Any image could be said to be a memory of something. Auntof6 (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete it's also a duplicate (plural) of Category:Memory, and it's just getting populated with images with keywords from Panoramio and Flickr. --ghouston (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Surely, I created this Category, as some needed (Sorry, not well remember) in 9 Sep 2015. But I saw the all 68 files just now, There is no related (appropriate "Memories") files in this Category. It might have been deleted or removed the file(s). Thereby, I think this Category is not useful. --Benzoyl (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
And also, I agree "Any image could be said to be a memory of something". I agree "duplicate". Thanks to everyone. --Benzoyl (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)- For comparison, I think Category:Memory (It's not limited to "human memories") is useful, also Category:Memory in art is useful. --Benzoyl (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
"Jamia masjid" is a general term for a town's main congregational mosque. A congregational mosque for an entire country is just absurd. HyperGaruda (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Why do we need this when we have Category:Streets in York? Streets in suburbs can be separated out as subcats at the top of the parent, if we even need to do that at all, because not everyone will know in which suburb a street is. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- IMHO it makes sense to have categories by suburb or city quarter (perhaps also by postcode), and also a hold-all category. The latter will be useful for those who know the street name, but not the suburb or the postcode. It can be the "Streets by name" category, or the "Streets" category itself, both can work, but for a fairly big place like York the former makes more sense to me. The list of streets by settlements in the City of York will eventually become long enough in itself. By the way, we may need to reorganize the category tree for York anyway, because there is the City of York (the larger adminstrative unit), and there is York itself as a part of the former. --Schlosser67 (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Nothing read for a long time. How about this:
(1) Let's move all named streets from "Streets in the City of York" into "Streets in York by name",
(2) set up a category "Streets in York city centre" within "Streets in the City of York" (there exist categories for other parts already),
(3) put all streets within the city walls there,
(4) and do the same for the other wards/parts?settlements in the City of York.
Does this sound like a plan? --Schlosser67 (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- That makes sense to me. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- All right, let's do it. Can we consider the discussion closed then? --Schlosser67 (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Kept. Seems like consenus was reached. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
unneeded 'association blaster' category.--Tostman (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Inappropriate de-population of entire category prior to this discussion. Category is appropriate for inclusion. Category images are free-use licensed. Am in touch with subject himself who will soon provide more images also. Sagecandor (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Tostman: What is an "association blaster" category? I've never seen that phrase before. We have several files depicting a particular person. Why would it not then be appropriate to have a category for that person? — Rhododendrites talk | 23:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: The category had several tags: Categories like Category:Intelligence (information gathering) or Category:Espionage, which are just loosely related (associated) to categories main topic.--Tostman (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've already cleaned up the category page, per @Kopiersperre: helpful advice. Sagecandor (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: The category had several tags: Categories like Category:Intelligence (information gathering) or Category:Espionage, which are just loosely related (associated) to categories main topic.--Tostman (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Tostman and Sagecandor: Am I okay to close this discussion? No need to delete? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Corresponding articles on the subject exist, and deletion doesn't seem warranted. — WFinch (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Excess parent categories removed. Category kept. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Empty category Crasstun (talk | contributions) 17:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- We have Category:LGBT-related videos. This could be used as a sub-category if we wanted to group videos of events together. But we don't currently even have Category:LGBT-related events. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Converted from {{Move}} started by Crouch, proposed target is Category:Roborough, South Hams (reason is to disambiguate)--Nilfanion (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment I agree disambiguation is sensible here. However "South Hams" is not appropriate, as this Roborough is in both the South Hams and Plymouth (it crosses the border to include Belliver Industrial Estate).
- And worse, this meaning arguably includes both Roborough airfield (ie Plymouth City Airport - well inside the city) and Roborough Down (which is larger than many parishes and straddles the West Devon/South Hams border).
- Not sure on a suitable target, but my second point above suggests something that restricts it to the village.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Would Category:Roborough, South Devon work? Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Roborough, south Devon (small s) would appear to make more sense per w:WP:UKPLACE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was moved to Category:Roborough, South Hams per w:Talk:Roborough, South Hams#Requested move 9 October 2018. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
This appears to be a spin off of Category:Mercedes-Benz Sprinter (2014) - Unfortunately the vehicle is no different exterior wise to the 2014 Sprinter making them next to none impossible to correctly categorise,
Judging by this and this the vehicle may be different underneath or the interior might be somewhat different however interiors range anyway so again they're impossible to identify,
I would recommend deleting this category and simply moving the files to the above category,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 11:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
No deed for single file, and file is marked for DR ~AntanO4task (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, in use. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Both files in the cat (I corrected the title as Rt Rana) are taken from FB and most probably will be deleted. In case no new images come, the cat will also go. --E4024 (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
new images has come and Keep, in useSjrahem (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
particular this image good reference for his announcing career. when he was announcer at India in Sri Lanka, Consulate General of India . and India in SriLanka, Consulate General of India office took this photo and upload their official verified Facebook
and this Category useful so Keep Stevenjames6 (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
closed. Category:Rt Rana is populated--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no category structure for road transport by year in India. (There is for other countries, but not India.) Do we want to create that structure for this one category (including the redlinked template), or recategorize the files here and delete this category? Auntof6 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- My lazy, sorry! - Olybrius (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Category tree is built. Problem solved. Estopedist1 (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Looks good. Do you want to remove the CFD template, or shall I? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: sorry, I forgot to remove it. Now OK, thanks for noticing!--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
These cats should be merged Oursana (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Category:Barry of six argent and sable is merged into the category in question Estopedist1 (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved from a {{Move}}, rationale is to disambiguate.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC) (copy paste from Category talk:Newport, Wales)
We also have Newport, Pembrokeshire so we have to come up with a better name than Category:Newport, Wales. Multichill (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I take it we can't just use the Welsh name, Casnewydd? I would have to say though, that when it disambiguates itself, Newport styles itself as Newport, South Wales, not Newport, Wales. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I like local languages but I don't think that a Welsh name will help, unless you want to hide it in a deep corner. "Newport, South Wales" should be better indeed, but maybe we should have a look at all possible city, district and historical variants before changing it. --Foroa (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- As a native Welsh-speaker I think Casnewydd would be great, but I recognise that is probably not feasible here as few non-Welsh speakers would recognise it, alas. The problem doesn't arise on Welsh Wikipedia as Trefdraeth is the name of the other Welsh 'Newport' but we do have a disambiguation page for 'Newport' (as does 'en'). I don't think 'Newport, South Wales' is acceptable as 'South Wales' is not an official region or area and its definition varies [and can include Pembrokeshire!]. Newport does, however, lie in the "preserved county" of Gwent, so I'd suggest Category:Newport, Gwent. Arguably 'en' is right to have Category:Newport as this is by far the biggest place of that name (there are quite a few places called 'London', but we don't have 'Category:London, England'), but the bots might not see things the same way, I suppose. Anatiomaros (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I like local languages but I don't think that a Welsh name will help, unless you want to hide it in a deep corner. "Newport, South Wales" should be better indeed, but maybe we should have a look at all possible city, district and historical variants before changing it. --Foroa (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
"Newport, Wales" is fine in my view. It matches the main Wikipedia article, which was disambiguated after a protracted debate. As a major city and county in Wales this Newport is definitely the main Newport in the country and already has a hatnote to direct people to the Pembrokeshire place. Gwent is anachronistic and flies in the face of naming categories after their current (not historic) location. I doubt "Newport (Casnewydd)" would be any improvement, particularly because Newport is not a strong Welsh-speaking area. Sionk (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- That title was chosen because there was no consensus on the target but consensus to remove the primary topic. The words "No prejudice towards another RM if a better way way of disambiguating the article is found" were used at the end. "Gwent" is still a preserved county so appears to be like Berkshire for example (ceremonial purposes), see w:Preserved counties of Wales. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Berkshire still exists as a county of England, so is not a good comparison. Maybe I'm contradicting my last comment here, but "Newport (Casnewydd)" would work as a disambiguator (as opposed to simply "Casnewydd"). I've searched the City Council website and am none the wiser as to the proper name for the area - City of Newport? City and County of Newport? Newport County Borough?? Sionk (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Berkshire is no longer functioning as an administrative county, see w:Berkshire County Council. w:Newport, Wales states that the "Ceremonial county" is Gwent in the info box. The names you gave are the long names for the county borough that Newport lies in like Category:Bridgend County Borough so wouldn't be a good target (but might be titles used if we split the cat). I would ask if natural or parenthetical disambiguation would be possible. I would assume "Newport-upon-Usk" wouldn't work as it appears to be very uncommon (especially today) "Newport (Welsh city)" might do but could cause confusion with the county borough as that appears to hold the city status (if we do end up splitting the cat). Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Berkshire still exists as a county of England, so is not a good comparison. Maybe I'm contradicting my last comment here, but "Newport (Casnewydd)" would work as a disambiguator (as opposed to simply "Casnewydd"). I've searched the City Council website and am none the wiser as to the proper name for the area - City of Newport? City and County of Newport? Newport County Borough?? Sionk (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose change. The large place at the mouth of the Usk is far more important than the tiny village in Pembrokeshire. There is no need to scratch around for a disambiguator that isn't unnatural, because there is no need to disambiguate this one from ", Wales".- Note also that a redirect from Newport, Wales, doesn't actually improve anything. A redirect just makes matter worse as it plonks a soft redirect in a common traffic route. It would not prevent a single person/file from correctly reaching the Pembrokeshire cat without first going via the other one. Only full conversion to a dab can address those issues, but a hatnote is better.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- In this case it could be converted into a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- That wouldn't solve the problem of what we call the town. Category:Newport, Newport somehow doesn't appeal to me, and I think DAB pages are really only useful if you have multiple possibilities. When, as here, there are only two settlements (as opposed to local government areas), mutual hatnotes wold seem to be the optimal solution. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- While I'd
Strong oppose having Newport, Wales redirect to the new location, I'd Oppose converting Newport, Wales to a dab. This is a case where one term is hundreds of times more important than the other, so it is unnecessary to have a dab. - Furthermore, I can't see a natural disambiguator. The options mooted all have serious flaws (the order is my opinion on recognisability): "South Wales" isn't precise enough as Pembrokeshire is also in South Wales; "Gwent" is historic and shouldn't be used; "Monmouthshire" is the same but 10x worse; "Casnewydd" isn't helpful to those unfamiliar with the Welsh name (consider how useless "(Casnewydd)" and "(Trefdraeth)" would be to someone who knows Welsh geography but not the Welsh language names); "Newport-upon-Usk" is obsolete; and plain "Newport" is bonkers. (city) won't help either, as the district not the settlement holds the status and that's asking for trouble in the future. The first option I can think of with nothing wrong about it is "South East Wales", and that's way down the list. I'd only go for something as artificial as that if I was absolutely forced to pick something. But as the city is clearly primary, thankfully that's not needed.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- The question is if incomplete disambiguation is allowed (as the ", Wales" isn't a term but someone might enter it into the search box), maybe this should be an exception though, as this one is clearly vastly more important and disambiguation is a problem. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- There is no guideline on Commons on this matter at all, you are just importing WP guidance. And if you are going to import guidance from WP you have to also include Wikipedia's single most important policy. In this case, there's very good reasons to ignore the guidance (any alternative is hopelessly contrived).-Nilfanion (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- There is no guideline on Wikipedia either on this (apart from w:PRIMARYTOPIC using the word "term") only w:WP:PDAB. In this case I agree that IAR might be appropriate here, I'll wait to see if there is any more discussion of whether "Gwent" is anachronistic, like "Carlisle, Cumberland" or "Newport, Monmouthshire" or if it is just like "Leigh, Greater Manchester" (as w:Greater Manchester County Council) has been abolished. Then I'll withdraw this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- There is no guideline on Commons on this matter at all, you are just importing WP guidance. And if you are going to import guidance from WP you have to also include Wikipedia's single most important policy. In this case, there's very good reasons to ignore the guidance (any alternative is hopelessly contrived).-Nilfanion (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- The question is if incomplete disambiguation is allowed (as the ", Wales" isn't a term but someone might enter it into the search box), maybe this should be an exception though, as this one is clearly vastly more important and disambiguation is a problem. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- In this case it could be converted into a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose change per Nilfanion. I don't think many people are going to be confused by this name. If they are looking for the place in Pembrokeshire a hatnote achieves that in one jump. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The article was moved from w:Newport, Wales unilaterally to w:City Of Newport, that was reverted shortly after I made a RM to move to w:Newport, Gwent which was closed as not consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Crouch, Swale: can we close this CFD? It seems that category:Newport, Wales is OK (ie no need for disambiguation)--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Close as no consensus to change, seems clear. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Het adres bestaat niet; gebouwen hebben als adres Brouwersgracht, maar staan aan Lijnbaansgracht. Ik moest een nieuwe categorie aanmaken en stuk voor stuk handmatig overzetten ivm toevoeging tekst en controle monumentennummers. Ceescamel (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Kan een redirect worden toch, gezien de adressen bij het RCE wel als Lijnbaansgracht genoemd worden, lijkt verwijderen mij geen logische stap, hoewel daar niet over gesproken wordt.. Grtz. Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ik heb het RCE aangeschreven, zij beheren een soort dood archief, dat omgezet wordt naar een meer toegankelijk geheel. Een dwc mag van mij ook naar Brouwersgracht 867-937; geen idee hoe ik dat moet doen.Ceescamel (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. The category in question is deleted by user:Rudolphous. Can we close this discussion, @Ceescamel and Richardkiwi: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fine with me,Ceescamel (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The reason was deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/06/Category:SVG diagrams of musical instruments in Persian. is this category really necessary? it only contains File:Acoustic guitar-ca.svg. --Son of a tax collector (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- This category is merely one of 33 language versions of that type of category under category:SVG diagrams of musical instruments, and no reason to avoid creating Catalan version.
- On the Category:musical instruments of Wikimedia Commons, there are several important source using Catalan (for example, Museu de la Música de Barcelona), however it is sometime hard to translate the technical term in Catalan to English accurately. So I've already created a translation table of musical instrument classification between Catalan and several languages. Similarly, if the various diagrams in other language versions were translated in Catalan, these may be helpful for both Catalan and other language people as a clue to understand each other media.
- I think the existence of category:SVG diagrams of musical instruments in Catalan, will encourage the future expansion of diagrams in Catalan.
- --Clusternote (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- I find it very unlikely that a commons category will encourage uploads, and more importantly, that's not what categories are for - they are for categorizing the files we already have to make them easier to find. I realize that Category:SVG diagrams of musical instruments has been thoroughly sub-categorized by language, but much of that was done by a single user. I would much rather see it sub-categorized by musical instrument, since many of these languages don't have many files in their base categories (See Category:SVG diagrams in Catalan) and don't need further sub-categorization. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. I propose to delete Category:SVG diagrams of musical instruments in Catalan and Category:SVG diagrams of musical instruments in Persian. Reason: one file, little potential to grow in near future. Objections?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
this category name is ambiguous, because there are two Casella family tombs at Staglieno Cemetery; it should be renamed to "Tomba Famiglia Francesco Giuseppe Casella (Cimitero di Staglieno)" so that the other family tomb (Carlo di G.B. Casella) can also have a Category page Seauton (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Any reason why this would be in Italian? Category:Casella family tomb (Cimitero di Staglieno) ? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- All the other categories referring to graves/monuments (Tomba) at Staglieno are in Italian. The cemetery is in Genova, Italia.
Seauton (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
PLEASE NOTE that this request for renaming a category has been pending (i.e., ignored, it seems) for almost a year now. If I've put this request in the wrong place, or done something wrong in the syntax or wording, please let me know. Otherwise, please make the logical and (I dare say) well-reasoned change. Thanks.
Seauton (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Stale discussion. The category in question is deleted by user:Túrelio. I guess the problem(s) are solved. Any objections for closing this discussion, @Seauton and Themightyquill: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Deletion go-ahead. This issue has been solved, and the Discussion should be deleted. Thanks for pointing this out. Seauton (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- It seems to be at Category:Tomba Famiglia Francesco Giuseppe Casella (Cimitero di Staglieno) now. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
This issue has been solved Estopedist1 (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Is this sparse category equivalent to Category:Trap (plumbing)? I don't know enough about plumbing to determine if there is a suble difference (sister cats or parent/child), vs just duplicates that should be merged. DMacks (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'd suggest merging to Category:Trap (plumbing) and deleting Category:Drain traps - Themightyquill (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: stale CFD. You can execute your suggestion. It is also possible to retain Category:Drain traps as a redirect, see en:drain trap--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Trap (plumbing). -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
In the city of Bayreuth, Germany, there is a district called St. Georgen (de:St. Georgen (Bayreuth), an independent city until 1811, but that shouldn't matter here). The main street in that district is also called St. Georgen ([1]). As far as I know, none of them is officially called Sankt Georgen ("Sankt" being what "St." stands for in German, the equivalent of "Saint something" in english).
Currently, we have:
- Category:St. Georgen Bayreuth for the district (subcat of Category:Districts of Bayreuth)
- Category:Sankt Georgen (Bayreuth) for the street (subcat of both Category:Streets and squares in Bayreuth and Category:St. Georgen Bayreuth)
Both of them on their own should probably be named Category:St. Georgen (Bayreuth), because
- the "Sankt" is never written out
- to be in line with the other contents of Category:Districts of Bayreuth and Category:Streets and squares in Bayreuth, which both use parantheses to distinguish things in Bayreuth to identically named things in other cities.
Can we agree on that so far? If the answer is yes, the next question would be how to distinguish the two. I'm thinking along the lines of Category:St. Georgen (district of Bayreuth) and Category:St. Georgen (street in Bayreuth). Does that make sense? Or do we have other standards for handling this kind of thing? El Grafo (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @El Grafo: without knowing details, I recommend that the district to be handled as the primary topic, hence: Category:St. Georgen (Bayreuth), and the street to be renamed to Category:St. Georgen (street in Bayreuth)--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1 Thanks for the reminder, I'm working on it. El Grafo (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Done I suppose that was an uncontroversial thing from the beginning, so I probably just should have gone ahead without asking here. --El Grafo (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/06/Category:SVG diagrams of musical instruments in Catalan. contains only one file and it's unlikely that this will become more Fotzenmoos (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deleted by Túrelio in November 2021 as empty. -- CptViraj (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
overly specific category with very little benefit. Causes hundreds of single file categories. The resolution of a video is readily available from it's file description page, and can now be used in the search field to find files by resolution, like using file over 400px wide vs. file over 200px wide. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. I really can't see the usefulness of this category tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree.--Partynia (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- +1. --El Grafo (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- keep some "notable" subcategories(SD, HD, UHD etc)--Midleading (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- +1. --El Grafo (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree.--Partynia (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per above. The resolutions mentioned by Midleading can be filtered as shown by TheDJ (maybe add some query links at Category:Videos by technical criteria?). FDMS 4 23:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Probably it would remove our ability to watch random UHD video on Wikimedia Commons with random page in category feature?--Midleading (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Not exactly sure many people do that, but if there is demand, someone could easily write a tool for those purposes. FDMS 4 14:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Wait, what? You want to undo categorization that serves a given purpose and if someone complains your solution is to develop a new feature? Well, categorization is that needed feature — it just needs to be fed the data you’re saying should be deleted. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Not exactly sure many people do that, but if there is demand, someone could easily write a tool for those purposes. FDMS 4 14:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Probably it would remove our ability to watch random UHD video on Wikimedia Commons with random page in category feature?--Midleading (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - Over-categorisation; endless parade of categories most of which only hold one video (for some nonstandard resolution they're presumably the sole example of). As noted above, this is much better dealt with through search tools. Ubcule (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- That’s not what over-categorization means. Hint: it’s not just “many” categories… Indeed, one single category on a file or cat page my be a case of actual COM:OVERCAT, and in many cases a given photo may have dozens of categories in its filepage, none of them being a case of actual COM:OVERCAT. As for many subcats, as in this case, it can be disgusting for many users, but it is not at all COM:OVERCAT. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't understand this proposal. These are hidden categories that serve to group files of similar parameter, much like the various technical categories for photographs. They are not duplicating any existing category function, or in any way overlapping anything in the existing category tree. Just because it is technically possible to search for a parameter and get results does not mean such categories should be removed as well. If that was the case, then we wouldn't have categories at all...we'd just use the search function and cleanup would involve making sure the file descriptions contained SEO-style data. Basically, this category system has a purpose and interferes with nothing. There's no reason to dismantle it. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all. Useless categorisation. And we could literally end up with millions of these categories, if height and width take any number larger than 300. (301~2000 are 1700 whole numbers. 1 700*1 700 = 2 890 000.) It's not difficult to create a new resolution. Cropping a video does that and it happens quite often.
- User:Schlurcher's SchlurcherBot should immediately stop creating these categories until this CfD is settled.--Roy17 (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, @Roy17: . I was not aware of this discussion. SchlurcherBot is approved to automatically perform media maintainance, if included into a maintainance category. In this case: Category:Videos needing display resolution category. I will stop these edits for the next couple of months, so a resolution can be found. --Schlurcher (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Any further insights on this? In case I do not hear otherwise, I will restart this bot task by 2020 again. --Schlurcher (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, @Roy17: . I was not aware of this discussion. SchlurcherBot is approved to automatically perform media maintainance, if included into a maintainance category. In this case: Category:Videos needing display resolution category. I will stop these edits for the next couple of months, so a resolution can be found. --Schlurcher (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. I do not see this as a case of overcategorization. There is also no straigt forward way to extract this information from commons (no API to my knowledge) so I see some value in keeping these. --Schlurcher (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Why in the world would you want to delete a meta category? You've advanced a rationale for deleting the subcategories, but you've nominated only the meta category that contains all of them. As long as we have the subcategories, it would be crazy to delete this one, since we'd have nowhere to put all the subcategories. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: I'm quite sure the intention is to delete the whole category tree, not just the metacategory. -Themightyquill (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well, "overly specific category with very little benefit" sounds like a single category, and "causes hundreds of single file categories" definitely doesn't apply to the subcategories, since they don't cause other categories to be created. When your nomination statement uses singular "category", and you don't say anything such as "This also includes the subcategories" or provide any links to them, the nomination needs to be treated as applying only to the parent category. Nyttend (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: I'm quite sure the intention is to delete the whole category tree, not just the metacategory. -Themightyquill (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think "causes hundreds of single file categories" definitely does apply to the subcategories, but I'll concede it should have been stated more clearly. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Stale discussion. We obviously haven't consensus to delete these subcategories (currently 10 500). This category tree is definitely unmanageable for humans, but being a metacategory tree, then maybe no problem. I guess, we can close this discussion as keep--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- User:SchlurcherBot is now adding height and width to videos like https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A2008_Election_Night_-_The_first_arrest_at_N._7th_and_Bedford.webm&diff=prev&oldid=749936020&diffmode=source . We dont need these manually maintained categories. Roy17 (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
No consensus. If the subject needs revisited now that SDC is around, a new CfD would be recommended. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I think this category should be deleted. "Mature" is another term for "adult", so "mature women" is another way of saying "women". There's no English Wikipedia article for "mature women" and there's no corresponding Category:Mature men. We also have a full range of age categories such as Category:40-year-old human females where the subject's age is known, and if the age isn't known we shouldn't guess. --ghouston (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Delete. - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
If the category is eliminated, I hope it won't be in the same way as in the classic "Adolescent girls" fiasco, where all categories with the words "Young women" in their name were blindly changed to have "Adolescent girls" in their names instead (regardless of appropriateness or otherwise), creating a huge mess which affected many thousands of files, and took years to fully clean up... AnonMoos (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- This wouldn't be a renaming, but a deletion. I'd just dump the contents of each "mature women" category into the corresponding "women" category. I suppose, since the categories aren't very large, it'd also be possible to check if they could be added to specific age group categories. I.e., where both the subject's birth date and the date of the image are known. --ghouston (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - An unnecessary and subjective category. Wiktionary definition #1 of "Subjective" = "Formed, as in opinions, based upon a person's feelings or intuition, not upon observation or reasoning; coming more from within the observer than from observations of the external environment." This category would be a constant source of error and clean up.
- Already have the factually accurate (where the age is known) - Category:Humans by chronological age which covers the full human lifespan for men and women of all ages. -- Ooligan (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Unnecessary cat. --E4024 (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep There is an article ja:熟女. and also Category:Old women have sub-category Category:Old women by age. Do you think it ? --Benzoyl (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think more about young women. Some of them are quite mature. I believe maturity is a state of mind, difficult to categorize. I will never add there any files if the cat stays. --E4024 (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- For example, "over 40" "mature women" in this writing. - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/fashion/a-20-somethings-web-site-for-women-over-40.html --Benzoyl (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is it Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/05/Category:Young women ? I think, User:Diwas's these Category name are nice ideas. --Benzoyl (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think more about young women. Some of them are quite mature. I believe maturity is a state of mind, difficult to categorize. I will never add there any files if the cat stays. --E4024 (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
You ask about Category:Young and mid-aged adult women (18-59 yo) or about Category:Mid-aged women (30-59 yo)? (40-59 yo)? or Category:Young adult women (18-39) and Category:Mid-aged women (40-59 yo)?--Diwas (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- If we had to have these categories, I'd go with Category:20-29 year-old women etc., which would just contain the existing categories for the individual years. But I don't think they are necessary. --ghouston (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Alternatively, create Category:Women by age and let it contain the individual age categories from 18 years upwards. The split between Category:Female humans and Category:Women causes problems in subcategories (likewise for the male versions). --ghouston (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- There's also a discussion about "Old people" etc., at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Old women by country. --ghouston (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- For some reason we don't have a cat on "Mature men". Or do we? Do we also have a cat on Nude or half naked men lying on the beach with sunglasses? I'm afraid we are too interested in women in Commons. Lack of enough female participants... --E4024 (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- I created Category:Mid-aged people . But, "between 45 and 65" writen in Middle age. I'm having some trouble this definition of range. --Benzoyl (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's not going to be a single definition for a term like "middle-aged". The proposal would be to rename this category to "Middle-aged women". I think "mature women" is more of a fashion industry / porn industry term, as the Google translate of the japanese article mentioned above (ja:熟女) suggests. I'm not sure if I support keeping it in this form (I already voted to delete Category:Old people.) At best, it would just be a container for categories like Category:40-year-old human females, or perhaps categories of the form Category:20-29 year-old women that I mentioned above and User:Benzoyl has started creating. --ghouston (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @ghouston, I agree "rename this category to "Middle-aged women"." --Benzoyl (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete unless it's repurposed; I have no objection to something like "Middle-aged women" as a subcategory of Women. But aside from that idea, this is not a helpful category, since we shouldn't have to guess someone's age when deciding which category to use for the photo. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- There is a consensus on deleting one of the subcats of this cat. Indeed this could also be deleted by now. --E4024 (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Issue remains. & there's no corresponding Category:Mature men. What on earth does it mean to have a picture like File:Garden of Cactus Dahlias, Alaska-Yukon-Pacific-Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 1909 (AYP 1190).jpeg, which has one woman barely visible in the distance classified in Category:Mature women. I still prefer deleting the category. - Jmabel ! talk 05:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment Leave the issues (discussions) remain forever without a result and IPs come and impose new cats like Category:Young adult women. Another problem to solve. --E4024 (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment Category:Young adult women is nice better naming. I agree. --Benzoyl (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- It was deleted for times, for a good reason... E4024 (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- BTW this cat was moved by User:Sanya3, similar to their making other new categorization around women, without waiting for a consensus. E4024 (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Given four years of lack of consensus, I don't blame him for being bold. I still say delete even under the new name (which is at least a little better, in that we might have some consensus what it means, though still not on how it is useful or appropriate). - Jmabel ! talk 00:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The Wikipedia rule is to be bold on editing, so I am using it here as well. I do think age-related categories are useful, both the number-based ones and the broader ranges, so "Middle-aged women" should be kept. It's a much better name than "mature women", as anyone can be mature for their age. I have also created the corresponding category of "Middle-aged men". --Sanya3 (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sanya: this is not Wikipedia, and "be bold" is not a principle on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 07:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
No action needed at this time. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Smart people who I think have a huge blind spot...
This approach is completely ahistorical, and confusing, and so unsuitable for a project we hope will remain useful for decades.
Consider Crimea. Is Crimea part of Russia? Is Crimea part of Ukraine?
Crimea is part of whatever larger entity it was a part of, at the time an event occurred, or a photo was taken.
A Canadian example. The Hudson's Bay Company had forts in what is now Washington State, making that fort, and its surroundings, part of the BNA. I suggest our categorization should reflect that...
So, in this particular case, I think the redirection should be reversed, and images that date back to prior to the incorporation of Toronto, should be restored to Category:York, Upper Canada, and its child subcategories.
In this discussion I used Mimico, a former city incorporated into Toronto, as an example. I suggested Category:Mimico should be supplemented by Category:Mimico, Upper Canada and Category:Mimico, Ontario. The original Mimico in Upper Canada extended all the way to the area around Islington Subway Station. At some point it split, and the northern portion was known as "Islington", not to be confused with another community named Islington, near Klienburg -- ie north of Toronto.
Once we start call everything by the current name, we make unnecessarily confusing categories. Geo Swan (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- It was Skeezix1000, who I suppose is Canadian, who moved that category. I guess that it's a matter that must be solved amongst Canadian Commoners, as I honestly wouldn't know how to sort the matter out. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Shouldn't this just be redirected to Category:York, Toronto (or that be moved to Upper Canada). Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Crouch, Swale - Absolutely not. Did you look at w:York, Ontario? The 6th paragraph of {{w|York, Ontario#History]] says "In 1954, York, along with other municipalities south of Steeles Avenue were severed from York County, forming the new upper-tier government of Metropolitan Toronto. In 1967, it absorbed the town of Weston, and became the Borough of York, later known as the City of York. (The map shows this area in red)." So, York, Upper Canada, founded in 1793, York, Ontario, founded in 1954. Their town sites are about 10 km distant. So, the two municipalities are little more than namesakes.
Consider Category:Crimea, Category:Crimea, Ukraine, Category:Crimea, Russia, Category:Crimea, USSR. The boundaries of political entities are mutable. And responsibilities for where they are administrated is mutable. Should historic events recorded in Crimea, when it was part of Ukraine, be categorized under Russia.
This is an ahistorical and damaging way of categorizing things.
If you are going to reply, please {{Ping}} me. Geo Swan (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Crouch, Swale - Absolutely not. Did you look at w:York, Ontario? The 6th paragraph of {{w|York, Ontario#History]] says "In 1954, York, along with other municipalities south of Steeles Avenue were severed from York County, forming the new upper-tier government of Metropolitan Toronto. In 1967, it absorbed the town of Weston, and became the Borough of York, later known as the City of York. (The map shows this area in red)." So, York, Upper Canada, founded in 1793, York, Ontario, founded in 1954. Their town sites are about 10 km distant. So, the two municipalities are little more than namesakes.
- UPDATE:
See also: Category talk:Pages with maps. I would like to discuss re-categorizing all image files in Category:Pages with maps to Category:Files with maps. My reasoning is that Commons images are of type :file not of type :page.
Members of Category:Pages with maps and Commons Category:Files with maps have two things in common. Both include geo-coordinates, specifically, {{Location}} or {{Object location}}.
I have read the rules on renaming and moving Commons categories. There are currently over 9,900,000 files in Category:Pages with maps. I do not want to proceed with renaming a Commons category without discussion about whether it is appropriate to do so, given the resources involved, even if using the cat renaming bot. FeralOink (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I do not really understand why all files were changed from Category:Files with maps to Category:Pages with maps. In November 2016 someone filled the category named files - I only finished the categorization. At that moment there where over 16.000 files. All files in Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project where in that category until some days ago. Now these files are in Category:Pages with maps, a category created in June 2016. Since 2006 exists Category:Media with locations. In my opinion we only need one of these 3 categories. Personally et prefer the oldest one: Category:Media with locations. But if we need two categories for technical reasons, than files with maps should be the second one. Traumrune (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would guess the logic is that the media/files themselves do not contain maps either visually or in exif data. The file in contained in the commons page. I'm not supporting or opposing that argument, but there is a logic to it. Some media does have GPS data built in, but not all of the contained files do, afaik. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Empty for a while, probably replaced by Category:Pages with maps. Closing/archiving. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
In Istanbul there are two lines in two different continents with nostalgic trams. Therefore this cat name should be changed. I could simply move it to "trams" but prefer to get opinions to find the best name. E4024 (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- If it's a general category rather than a proper name, maybe use the term "heritage" instead of nostalgia, as per Category:Heritage rail transport ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- We have: a Category:Nostalgic tram lines in Prague. --E4024 (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Themightyquill: I suggest to use enwiki en:Istanbul nostalgic tramways, or per user:E4024's suggestion: Category:Nostalgic tram lines in Istanbul--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Renamed to Nostalgic tram lines in Istanbul. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
no difference with Category:Paintings of interiors of art galleries Oursana (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. Jane023 (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- If there's a difference, it needs to be clearly spelled out in category descriptions. What would you say is the difference, Jane023 ? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- The same difference between an art collection and an art gallery. Jane023 (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Jane023: Could please try to be be more helpful? Neither Category:Art galleries nor Category:Art collections has a category description. Our naming scheme doesn't match well with the one on wikipedia either. Without a clear argument in favour of keeping the distinction, there's no reason not to merge. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Fine, but I have no idea what you mean by "category description". Jane023 (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Could it be that an art gallery is a business where art is acquired (for sale) more than collected, and an art collection is an accumulation of pieces of art that the owner intends to keep? (That would be a modern use of the term "gallery", as opposed to the older meaning of a long hallway that might well contain art.) We probably wouldn't always be able to tell which is which just from looking at an image.
@Jane023: A "category description" would be text on a category page that describes what belongs in the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Jane023: Could please try to be be more helpful? Neither Category:Art galleries nor Category:Art collections has a category description. Our naming scheme doesn't match well with the one on wikipedia either. Without a clear argument in favour of keeping the distinction, there's no reason not to merge. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- The same difference between an art collection and an art gallery. Jane023 (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- If there's a difference, it needs to be clearly spelled out in category descriptions. What would you say is the difference, Jane023 ? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
An art gallery refers to a specific place (could be a place where art is publicly shown or sold, but sometimes just a private gallery in a palace or large estate). An art collection can be a random selection of objets'd'art from the contents of a cabinet or a certain collector. It is not specific to a place, though it may be specific to a collection owner. To me, the meaning is clear from the titles of the categories. Jane023 (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Why is File:Alfred Joseph Woolmer - Interior of the British Institution (Old Master Exhibition, Summer 1832) - Google Art Project.jpg not Paintings of Interiors of Art galleries?Oursana (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Jane023: Do we have any paintings of art collections which are not mounted for display in a gallery? What would such a painting even look like? A painting of rows of art stacked together but not displayed? Collection, in your sense, is similar a body of work, a corpus, or a genre - more a mental association between different objects, less something that can be painted. If we want to differentiate, as Auntof6 has suggested, between "Contemporary art galleries" (where things are sold), "private galleries" (in people's homes, etc), and public galleries (museums etc) that would be more useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
-
Small art collection in a wall cabinet -
Typical art collection arranged for the painting -
Typical art gallery (except this is a collection of works for an exhibition, and not the works which presumably hung there normally
.jpg)
.jpeg){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg){kind=link}
There is a difference between galleries that can be specified to collections that can't. Jane023 (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jane023 The first two do seem like good examples of art collections that are not galleries. With the third, you're suggesting it's both a gallery and a collection? Doesn't that apply to many galleries? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- The first example, Kunstkammerregal is Cabinets of curiosities in art and not and shall not be art collection.
- If you compare the 2 cats in discussion they are often mixed, above example File:Alfred Joseph Woolmer - Interior of the British Institution (Old Master Exhibition, Summer 1832) - Google Art Project.jpg, which should be better in Paintings of interiors of art galleries--Oursana (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment This is how I understand it: A gallery is a place, usually open to the public. A collection is an accumulation of objects, owned by a specific collector (which can be a person or an institution), often following some kind of theme. A collection can be displayed in a gallery, but it can also be located somewhere in a private home or deep down in a dark archive. A gallery can be used to (permanently or temporarily) display a collection, parts of a collection, several specimens from different collections, or even be rented to an artist to display and sell his/her works. So of course there is some overlap, but to me these are still two very different things. hth, --El Grafo (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Since most museum galleries own their own permanent collection, that's more than some overlap. And if they are so different, than one should not be a sub-category of the other. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, for most museums you are of course correct. I was thinking more about the kind of gallery that have one exhibition for a few months and get something new. And yes, I think they should be parallel category trees rather than one being a sub-category of the other one. But then again, I don't really know much about the arts scene, so … --El Grafo (talk) 07:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Since most museum galleries own their own permanent collection, that's more than some overlap. And if they are so different, than one should not be a sub-category of the other. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I totally forgot about this conversation. I don't think of Commons categories as an exact science. I create them and use them to increase findability, not to confuse people. Theoretically we have lots and lots of paintings that could be sorted into either of these galleries, which is why I am against merging them. I suppose it would be useful to have a third category specific to "Paintings of museum galleries" which was a popular late 19th-century genre. I tend to hang out more in the 17th-century and only fiddle with categories when I am working on a group of paintings that need one. I rarely go out in search of paintings to populate categories I have created. Jane023 (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- (Stalker) I was very surprised to see that we did not have a Category:Painting exhibitions. Therefore I opened one. --E4024 (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | Closed as "no consensus." There doesn't seem to be a clear solution to the problem this CfD is aimed at fixing anyway. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
subcategories should be skipped & deleted: there are 8 subcategories for 10 objects, most objects are not put to these subcategories, for an overall amount of 74 objects there is no need to have conceptionally 23 subcategories for the districts of Vienna. Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@Johann Jaritz: as the creator or the subcategories. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you are completely right, @Herzi Pinki: . So may I ask you to remove that unnecessary sub-category. Thanks in advance! Best wishes and kind regards. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Johann Jaritz and Herzi Pinki: there seems to consensus to delete this districts' subcategories. Related files/categories to be upmerged to Category:Crucifixes in Vienna--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: , I emptied the subcats and put DR on them. In clear cases like this one, please go on and do it. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Delete the district level categories. | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Notes | The district level sub-categories seem to have been deleted a while ago. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
For good reasons categories usually do not distinguish whether an attribution is current or gone-by: If a categorization was true at one point of time it stays and doesn´t get a "former" when it changes. Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. --E4024 (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, we have: Category:Former members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Category:Former members of the New Zealand House of Representatives, Category:Former AKB48 members, Category:Former SKE48 members, Category:Former Scientologists, Category:Former Theosophists, Category:Former Unificationists, Category:Former Christians. Anyway, if in the context of party-members the disputed cat is the only one with this structure, I agree to its dissolution. --Túrelio (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep This is not at all the only category in the form of "Former members of <party>". We have Category:Former members of the Estonian Centre Party, Category:Former Members of Alternative für Deutschland, Category:Former members of Members of The Greens – European Free Alliance, Category:Former members of the MDF, etc. plus several similar categories of member of parliament. This has become a valid system so I don't see any problems with this category. De728631 (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- It would be an enormous amount of work to maintain if we did this for everyone, and in many cases impossible. Not everyone posts public announcement when their membership lapses or they quit a party. The fact that a small handful of other examples exist may only suggest that they too should be deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. Delete them all. --E4024 (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- So what about Category:Resignation of public officials or Category:Establishments and Category:Disestablishments in general? By the logic of "categories usually do not distinguish whether an attribution is current or gone-by", we don't need these categorisations either. And the amount of work to maintain such categories is a non-argument. If we were basing the usefulness of categories on the amount of work needed, we should immediately block all upload bots. De728631 (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- It´s not the amount of work as such, but the question whether there´s a reasonable probability (and the practical possibility) that someone will do it. Túrelio started the cat half a year ago with a single entry. By now it has three entries. It is a subcat to ":Category:Members of the CDU" with 1700 entries. Will I check those 1700 for current party membership? No, I will not, for several reasons: First, I wouldn´t know against which data base it could be checked. Second, I would have to do it every month or so, which is boring. And third, I can´t see why it should be worth the effort, as it helps neither in curating nor in finding content - quite the contrary: Categories with a very low probability of being accurate obscure content rather than increasing its accessability. Will anyone else do it? After six months I dare to say obviously not. In general I´d wish that new (sub)categories with consequences for a large number of existing categories were only created if the creator took the consequences upon himself or if there´s some support for a joint effort. Otherwise we grow a tree with an ever-increasing number of almost dead branches that take the water from the stonger limbs and the light from the green leaves - says me as a hobby gardener ;-) --Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more. --E4024 (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- It´s not the amount of work as such, but the question whether there´s a reasonable probability (and the practical possibility) that someone will do it. Túrelio started the cat half a year ago with a single entry. By now it has three entries. It is a subcat to ":Category:Members of the CDU" with 1700 entries. Will I check those 1700 for current party membership? No, I will not, for several reasons: First, I wouldn´t know against which data base it could be checked. Second, I would have to do it every month or so, which is boring. And third, I can´t see why it should be worth the effort, as it helps neither in curating nor in finding content - quite the contrary: Categories with a very low probability of being accurate obscure content rather than increasing its accessability. Will anyone else do it? After six months I dare to say obviously not. In general I´d wish that new (sub)categories with consequences for a large number of existing categories were only created if the creator took the consequences upon himself or if there´s some support for a joint effort. Otherwise we grow a tree with an ever-increasing number of almost dead branches that take the water from the stonger limbs and the light from the green leaves - says me as a hobby gardener ;-) --Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- So what about Category:Resignation of public officials or Category:Establishments and Category:Disestablishments in general? By the logic of "categories usually do not distinguish whether an attribution is current or gone-by", we don't need these categorisations either. And the amount of work to maintain such categories is a non-argument. If we were basing the usefulness of categories on the amount of work needed, we should immediately block all upload bots. De728631 (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. Delete them all. --E4024 (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Rudolph Buch, E4024, Túrelio, De728631, and Themightyquill: To end this former/current stuff in Commons. I did a SQL quarry:
- former members; 22 categories
- Category:Arab Air Carriers Organization (former members)
- Category:Former members of Wikimedia Ukraine
- Category:Former members of organizations
- Category:Former members of sports organizations
- Category:Former members of the Affiliations Committee
- Category:Former members of the CDU
- Category:Former members of the Cabinet of Ewa Kopacz at KOD-demonstration
- Category:Former members of the Children of God
- Category:Former members of the Colombian Liberal Party
- Category:Former members of the Estonian Centre Party
- Category:Former members of the European Union
- Category:Former members of the Executive Council of Hong Kong
- Category:Former members of the Fidesz
- Category:Former members of the Funds Dissemination Committee
- Category:Former members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong
- Category:Former members of the MDF
- Category:Former members of the MSZMP
- Category:Former members of the MSZP
- Category:Former members of the National Solidarity Party
- Category:Former members of the Reform Party (Singapore)
- Category:Former members of the Westboro Baptist Church
- Category:Former members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
- current members; only 5 categories
- Category:Arab Air Carriers Organization (current members)
- Category:Banners of the current members of the Garter
- Category:Coats of arms of the current members of the Garter
- Category:Current members of the Affiliations Committee
- Category:Current members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
Can anyone here find a category which should be kept instead of deleting/upmerging?--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- You missed everything in Category:People by former religion. I don't think we should deal with all of the above as a batch. We might look at all the "former members of political parties" categories, and be sure to tag each one with this discussion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- i'd say reasons for "leaving a party" can be divided into two scenarios: by death and by human decision (quitting, expelling, etc.).
- when people discuss a person who's been a member of a party until his/her death, people dont usually call them "former members", but they are obviously not "current members" either.
- but for people who leave a party because of other reasons, they would definitely be called "former members".
- the question for commons cat tree is, should we categorise these people under "former members", to signify that they left the party (not because of death)? is it appropriate to categorise these people as "members of xx party", as long as they have been at certain point? for example, donald trump was once a democrat. is it confusing to put him under both democrats and republicans cats? RZuo (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | Category delete | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Notes | The category has since been deleted, making this CfD moot. Although there's probably similar ones that could be dealt with to, but that's another discussion. So I'm closing this as done. | |||
Contributors submitions should not be signed. 83.204.214.41 13:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
For discussion some notes about the Category:Pierre Gencey - information about him on : [2] - he is not subject of an wikipedia article. - his drawings concerns collegues interior designers - the category (or the individual files) could use addition of the Category:"Black and white portrait drawings of men." --Elgewen (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@Elgewen: I did Wikidata entry for Pierre Gencey. Usually we don't do categories for not notable artists, but maybe this is the case where the ad hoc category is useful?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Estopedist: Unfortunately, the link to 'Chezchez.fr/L-auteur-Pierre-Gencey' does not exist anymore. Now I guess that we get no further material on the person. It's perhaps better to rename the category, e.g. 'Category:Sketches by Pierre Gencey', or simply 'Category:Sketches of men'. (I don't sign here now, following the above instruction 'Contributors submissions should not be signed.' I am sorry if I misunderstood this instruction.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elgewen (talk • contribs) 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Category deleted as empty. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Guardería ABC (with í instead of i, and the space) is the real name in Spanish. ·×ald·es 18:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems right, as per es:Incendio de la Guardería ABC. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yup. Incendio is the word for fire (like the big one, not just the one from a lighter or a match). Guardería ABC is where it took place. ·×ald·es 01:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. This category is linked with en:2009 Hermosillo daycare center fire. Should we follow the title used in enwiki, user:XalD, user:Themightyquill?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Makes sense to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: I agree. ·×ald·es 02:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: moved. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
This category needs discussion for two things. One is the use of the term "inscription" in the name. The words on these signs are not really inscriptions. It seems to me that a better term might be "by text" (like its subcat Category:Red octagonal stop signs by text) or "by wording" or something like that.
The other discussion item is the "by" in the name. The name "Stop signs by inscription" sounds a lot like a metacat to me, and it must have to User:JotaCartas, too, because he/she put a metacat template on it. I don't think the current name makes sense if the cat isn't a metacat. When I did one of my periodic checks for files in metacats, I found the files in this one and moved them to their parent category. After User:Fry1989 put them back, I left him/her a message explaining why I had moved them. The only reply was "I created that category with a specific intent, I know what it is."
I suggest that either we rename this category, possibly with input from Fry1989 as to what his/her intent was, or leave it the way it is and affirm that it is a metacat that should not have files in it. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- (stalking :) - "I know what it is" sounds like Orson Welles BTW. --E4024 (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it make more sense to organize these by language? Category:Stop signs by language would fit far more easily in the category tree. Since many places seem to have both the local language and "stop" or "arret", it might make sense to use the format Category:Stop signs with X language (and Category:Multilingual stop signs with X language) rather than Category:X-language stop signs. We might even bypass that and skip to Category:Red octagonal stop signs by language if there's support for that. Btw, in my opinion, an image of a hand does not meet the definition of "an inscription." = Themightyquill (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Except that some of the words seem to be the same in multiple languages. I looked up "stop" in Wiktionary, and the definitions for more than just English indicate something related to stopping. Do we include this type of thing in different subcats for different languages, or only the language that was intended by the maker of the signs? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Does that apply to any of these other than stop? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe "halt", which has the meaning of stop in English, but it's not what is put on the signs. I don't know about any others. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Auntof6 and Themightyquill: Firstly, I cannot evaluate the suitability of the phrase <by inscription>. Enwiki has only one such category (en:Category:Cash coins by inscription). If <by inscription> is not suitable, then maybe many categories are affected (top parent Category:Objects by inscription). Secondly is the problem with being a metacategory or being not a metacategory, actual?--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mike Peel and Ooligan: pinging participants of related Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/02/Category:Images by text discussion. Josh (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment @Auntof6, Themightyquill, and Estopedist1: We just recently closed Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/02/Category:Images by text, settling on a rename of the 'text' categories which are focused on the literal text depicted in an image. These have been renamed (well, still wrapping up the change at the moment) to "Category:subject (text)" format. For language differences, the text category can then be added to categories such as Category:Images by English text or Category:Images by Spanish text or what have you. It would also seem that this format could encompass these categories as well, such as "Category:Stop signs by inscription – STOP" to "Category:Stop (text) on signs" or some such and it would then be a sub of the already existing Category:Stop (text), which seem rather orderly to me. They would be easy to index both language-independently as a list of signs by text, as well as per language via the already established 'by text by language' index. Josh (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- This idea by @Joshbaumgartner: looks like a good way forward to me. Perhaps this could also be merged into Category:Stop signs by language at the same time? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel @Joshbaumgartner @Auntof6 @Estopedist1 @Themightyquill @E4024
- I support a change. The change suggested by Josh and Mike are good suggestions. I am willing to help do the work to change these categories after a decision. I helped Josh to make changes to "Category:subject (text)" after that discussion was closed. The "by inscription" naming is not as good as the proposed changes. Multi-language flexibility appears to be maintained. Ooligan (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: I don't see why not, it sounds good to me. Josh (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Rename/merge the subcats to "<stop> (text) on stop signs" (to distinguish from other signs with "stop") and merge the nominated category to Category:Stop signs by language. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Title is ambiguous and confusing in other ways too. It intends to include "river types", but more easily it reads that it includes simply "rivers".
Judging by current content of this category, the idea is to categorize river types and all kinds of parts of a river. A "stretch" however usually and more specifically means a part of a whole river between two points of its course, usually some longer part (10s or 100s of meters, or kilometers). Currently there are bunch of subcategories that are not about river types, and it isn't clear in what way are they about river stretches either. E.g. we can consider a river stretch with rapids, but "rapids" in itself isn't necessarily a stretch. Things like rapids, waterfall, mouth or source are generally a narrow spot in a river instead.
Also, I don't see a good reason to combine river types and river parts into one category. We could instead have two different categories: "Rivers by type" and "River parts", or something like that. 62.65.58.38 09:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC) 62.65.58.38 09:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- I understand what you mean. As far as I remember we discussed this also somewhere else. My problem here would be that only stretches of rivers or parts of them are eg. braided or meandering, normally not the whole river. So this category seemed to me and some others a tolerable compromize.Reykholt (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Possibly there could be additional category "Channel types" (cf. w:channel types). This would tie "Braided rivers" and "Meanders" more naturally as subcategories. (Ideally "Braided rivers" and "Meandering rivers" would go together then, but the latter probably isn't useful in addition to current "Meanders".)
- I see, you probably refer to this talk. I agree with Rodhullandemu that category titles including "or" should generally be avoided. Also, all river images taken from a certain point are equally of a river and some stretch of a river, so separate category for river stretches probably wouldn't be useful. 62.65.58.38 13:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- It seems to confuse geomorphological features with sections (read stretches) of rivers. Also note that type is a wildcard for material type, morphological type and so on. It's also horrible to include in top level categories that are either rivers or stretches of rivers. A lot of the sub categories found may well be diffused to categories with a narrower definition. It's a burden to maintain and the transition points to well discriminating top level categories are dirty/fuzzy. I do not oppose deleting them (though I won't do so on my own). --Cmuelle8 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Split into Category:Rivers by type and Category:Stretches of rivers by type. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||