Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/08
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 August 2021
x-wiki spam. not notable Minoraxtalk 10:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Created by indefatigable sockpuppet, blocked multiple previous occasions. This category created and imge uploaded an insulting nuber of times. Please dlete WEP and salt both categiory and image. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Images deleted, empty cat deleted & protected. --Achim (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be a duplicate of Category:DevilDriver. Mike Peel (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: converted into a redirect. --Minoraxtalk 14:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Typo, right spelling is "Xuancheng". Whisper of the heart 17:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted by Túrelio. --Minoraxtalk 14:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
empty category Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Tagged as empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Speedy Deleted by Túrelio. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I think this is the same as Category:Brisbane Exhibition Ground and could be merged (but I'm not 100% sure). Mike Peel (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, as a local who has been there many times, they are photos of the same place and should be merged. It has had many names officially and unofficially over the years. The current name appears to be "Brisbane Showgrounds" [1] Kerry Raymond (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Kerry Raymond: Thanks for confirming! Which category should they be merged to - or should we set up a new category at Category:Brisbane Showgrounds? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- The site is inextricably associated with the annual Exhibition as the site was established for the event in 1876. This is Queensland's single largest event (400,000 people on average each year pre-COVID, albeit cancelled due to COVID in 2020 and 2021, sadly it should have been happening this very week!) and one of Australia's largest ag shows), so I think "Exhibition" needs to be part of the name. The railway station within the grounds (only used when there are events) is officially Exhibition railway station which I guess adds weight to "Exhibition" being part of the name. I don't think it greatly matters if "Ground" is singular or plural; that's interchangeable for any showground/s in the country. I presume it is promoted by its operators as "Brisbane Showgrounds" as it is rented out in parts for other smaller events throughout the year so they have a reason to try to break the nexus between the event and the place, but while that name would be understood by a local, it's less likely to be the term they would use. Maybe we could call the category "Brisbane Exhibition Showgrounds" (which would facilitate both the official name and common usage and repond to any of the likely search terms. If we included "home to the annual Ekka agricultural show" in the category description, that would cover off on pretty much all the keywords likely to be used to find it. Kerry Raymond (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Kerry Raymond: OK, thanks for the background and for thinking this through! I've now merged them to Category:Brisbane Exhibition Showgrounds - how does that look? If you're happy, then we can close this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good, thanks Kerry Raymond (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Kerry Raymond: OK, thanks for the background and for thinking this through! I've now merged them to Category:Brisbane Exhibition Showgrounds - how does that look? If you're happy, then we can close this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- The site is inextricably associated with the annual Exhibition as the site was established for the event in 1876. This is Queensland's single largest event (400,000 people on average each year pre-COVID, albeit cancelled due to COVID in 2020 and 2021, sadly it should have been happening this very week!) and one of Australia's largest ag shows), so I think "Exhibition" needs to be part of the name. The railway station within the grounds (only used when there are events) is officially Exhibition railway station which I guess adds weight to "Exhibition" being part of the name. I don't think it greatly matters if "Ground" is singular or plural; that's interchangeable for any showground/s in the country. I presume it is promoted by its operators as "Brisbane Showgrounds" as it is rented out in parts for other smaller events throughout the year so they have a reason to try to break the nexus between the event and the place, but while that name would be understood by a local, it's less likely to be the term they would use. Maybe we could call the category "Brisbane Exhibition Showgrounds" (which would facilitate both the official name and common usage and repond to any of the likely search terms. If we included "home to the annual Ekka agricultural show" in the category description, that would cover off on pretty much all the keywords likely to be used to find it. Kerry Raymond (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Kerry Raymond: Thanks for confirming! Which category should they be merged to - or should we set up a new category at Category:Brisbane Showgrounds? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Merged to new title. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea why this category was moved. "Misty morning" sounds like a porn star. If you want to express the idea of mist in the morning, what's wrong with the original? Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- There was no original that I could see. There was no "morning mist" category, although two files were listed there without a category. JMK (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I can't seem to find the original name but honestly I have to agree with Rod the name does sound like a pornstar weirdly ..... Either way I would suggest moving this to either the original name or to a better name. –Davey2010Talk 23:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn't sound like a porn star to me but like a subcategory of morning, which you are welcome to rename as you like. If someone wants to see a category for "morning mist" which focuses on the mist, they are welcome to create it, but I see it as superfluous. Neither of these categories existed until a few moments ago. JMK (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- By the way, google image searches for "misty morning" or "morning mist" each gives essentially the same type of picture, and many examples of each. Bob Marley's "Misty morning" is about the sun that is not yet shining. JMK (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn't sound like a porn star to me but like a subcategory of morning, which you are welcome to rename as you like. If someone wants to see a category for "morning mist" which focuses on the mist, they are welcome to create it, but I see it as superfluous. Neither of these categories existed until a few moments ago. JMK (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I can't seem to find the original name but honestly I have to agree with Rod the name does sound like a pornstar weirdly ..... Either way I would suggest moving this to either the original name or to a better name. –Davey2010Talk 23:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK, have thought about this since late last night. We don't have a model to follow of Category:Sunny morning, Category:Rainy morning, e.g. so I suppose we could set the precedent. It's usual for categories for several things to be plural, so I'd support Category:Misty mornings. Thoughts? Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I on the other hand went off to argue with someone else over nothing and forgot all about this! :-), Anyway misty mornings sounds a lot lot better so I 100% support the name proposal, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Cool with it either way. Found a stack of files, some completely uncategorized, which had "misty morning" included in the file name, and added the best of them. The public does not seem to attach a secondary meaning to it. Hope you can easily move the category with the included files, and the same applies to "Misty morning(s) in art". JMK (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done - Files moved, subcat moved, redirects deleted as seems pointless keeping. –Davey2010Talk 00:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Misty mornings (redirect deleted as pointless keeping). –Davey2010Talk 00:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Klopt de naam van deze kerk wel? De foto's lijken zeer veel op die in Category:Nederlands Hervormde Kerk, Breukelen, die in Wikipedia Pieterskerk (Breukelen) wordt genoemd. En ook de Herenweg in Breukelen is onbekend, in ieder geval in Google Maps. Mijn voorstel: foto's overhevelen en deze beide categories laten vervallen. JopkeB (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Is the name of this church correct? The photos are very similar to those in Category:Nederlands Hervormde Kerk, Breukelen (Dutch Reformed Church), which is called nl:Pieterskerk (Breukelen) in Wikipedia. And the Herenweg in Breukelen is also unknown, at least in Google Maps. My suggestion: transfer photos and drop these two categories. JopkeB (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Think one category can be dropped indeed. Rudolphous (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The photos in Category:Oostkerk, Breukelen has been transferred to subcategories of Category:Nederlands Hervormde Kerk, Breukelen and there is now a redirect. JopkeB (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to numerous other, better-named categories; indiscriminate. Dronebogus (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I can't rember that i created this category, so from my point it can be deleteted. --Hiddenhauser (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have converted the page into a redirect and removed all images. Dronebogus (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Themightyquill (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Error operation －Terry850324（Talk） 08:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. @Terry850324: In the future, please just use {{SD|G1}} for accidental creations instead of opening a discussion. – BMacZero (🗩) 15:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
mp3 TumiMajess (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Nothing to discuss, originator's contributions do not inspire confidence. – BMacZero (🗩) 15:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Empty category, inappropriate capitalization, misleading title (trees don't produce biodiesel, they produce chemicals used as a feedstock for the production of biodiesel). Marbletan (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Closing: cat has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
" Users who upload useless audio files. These users may get banned!" This has got to be some sort of joke, right? Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
|"These are spies under the great Souji dynasty." This reads like vandalism. Going over the creator's recent edits does show that they are experiencing some sort of bad reaction to audio of people coughing. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
no photos Sophia91 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted by Túrelio. --Achim (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
no photos, appears to be just Category:Mehrdad Ardeshi in the Iranian script Sophia91 (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Empty & broken redirect. --Achim (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Germany. Need all to be deleted. Contributers2020Talk to me here 04:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose FOP is only relevant if there is something copyrightable there to protect. Germany, and its churches, is old enough that much of their interior design is simply in the PD owing to age, and so may freely be photographed, regardless of FOP.
- Also it is quite untrue that there is no COM:FOP in Germany. German FOP is limited to public interior spaces (which has quite a narrow definition, and we may be outside it here), but in general Germany does have FOP. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: For the first statement, for every picture, there is no proof of the build date in any picture. You can also inquire the same by seeing random files. For the second statement, yes there is FOP everywhere but main thing is not in Public Interiors; that just matters.
We can 
Keep only 17 images as per my analytics. I have no problem in that.--Contributers2020Talk to me here 15:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Out of 1200 images? That's ridiculous. We have more images than that which are century-old postcards, themselves out of copyright. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Let me clear- I want the main category which has 78 files deleted right now. The analytics
Info was only for the 78 files. I want the main category delete, let the subcategory exist. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 02:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- That makes even less sense.
- There is an issue here for recent (i.e. based on the lifespan of architect or designer) churches. That issue would extend into the whole category tree. Now a reasonable, if unfortunate, response to that would be to check those churches and to make DRs on each image. They could be bundled, but they'd be chosen by church, not for "churches in Germany" overall. But trying to delete whole groups just for being in Germany (as you're doing here) is excessive. If you did do that, you'd also inevitably be affecting the child categories as well. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Let me clear- I want the main category which has 78 files deleted right now. The analytics
- CfD is for proposing changes to (and deletions of) categories. If there are 17 images that can be kept, that's more than enough to keep the category. If you want some files deleted you should go through COM:DR instead (but note what Andy says above). --bjh21 (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep We should certainly keep this category. If individual files do not apply to FOP Germany, they should be deleted – but not the whole category, especially not as this is a very relevant parent category. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep: At the very least, PD interiors would be allowed, so this category will never be empty. CfD is also the wrong way to nominate images in a category for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Porni film video 185.186.81.239 10:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
NAC. Speedily kept as unspecific nomination and so what anyway? Maybe unacceptable in Kosovo, but not elsewhere. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
it should be renamed and merged into Category:1915 in Albania reason: spelling mistake Robby (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete just delete it. I'll put a speedy on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Category should be deleted. Spelling mistake made on creation. Correct category created. Malcolma (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
@Malcolma: There's no need for a discussion for spelling mistakes, just mark it as {{Badname}}. I did so. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Didn't know that. Malcolma (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Obsolete Typo category CzarJobKhaya (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Marked as {{Badname}}. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Redundant category created by a now-blocked user. All files have been moved to Category:Orange sunsets of the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Category with no meaningful purpose. Roads in the Philippines are roads by default, how come roads are nominal only? Besides, all images and categories of roads are expected to be categorized appropriately. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Since this page is over seven years old and is empty, it probably doesn't require discussion. I've tagged it as empty to get it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: thanks for a tip. It seems tagging unused and old categories or uncontroversial tagging of unused, redundant cayegories with speedy tag is equivalent to enwiki's PROD system, which means it is fine and still complies with Commons policies. I will do that procedure from now on so as to prevent buildup of CfD discussions. Now I'll mention an admin to close this. Ping @Minorax: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: No need. CFDs can be closed by non-admins, especially in cases where the category has been deleted. I'll close it now. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: thanks for a tip. It seems tagging unused and old categories or uncontroversial tagging of unused, redundant cayegories with speedy tag is equivalent to enwiki's PROD system, which means it is fine and still complies with Commons policies. I will do that procedure from now on so as to prevent buildup of CfD discussions. Now I'll mention an admin to close this. Ping @Minorax: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Close: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
What is this category about, can you give a definition? Why is Category:Labour a parent category? JopkeB (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Guess it might be about blocking of parking spaces. (In that case, the parent category is a bit off.) There is a similar Category:Illegal parking which however treats illegally parked cars - as opposed to other items blocking parking spaces. --Zv0486~commonswiki (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks User:Zv0486~commonswiki! I changed the parent category and added a discription.
This category is about blocking parking spaces. The parent category "Labour" has been changed for proper ones and this category now has a description. JopkeB (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Category without wikidata item is empty now and can be deleted, all files have been moved to Category:Food menus. --Gonepteryx (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted by Túrelio. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Too much specific category (to the point that it has become a wastage) and invites redundant and potentially out of scope files. All image files have been moved to Category:Lesbian street vendors from the Philippines. Besides those files only depict the same subject, but made categorized into separate categories just because the subject only sat on his pedicab, an utter mistake by the now-blocked user that is on the verge of COM:OVERCAT by producing unnecessary categories. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes all of these bizarre overly specific Philippines categories are made by one user to hold the millions of his own files he has dumped here, they can be merged, renamed and deleted as needed. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
empty category MiguelAlanCS (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Faraz Khosravi Danesh Fkhdanesh (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Fkhdanesh: What action are you proposing be done with this category? Please use a complete sentence. – BMacZero (🗩) 15:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Nonsense request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Category of an unremarkable and unfamous bridge. All of the three files previously here have been moved (by me) to Category:North Luzon Expressway (Guiguinto segment). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Empty cat Robot8A (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Alexey Popov proktolog (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Redirected. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary and excessive category that is redundant to Category:Rehabilitation-improvement of Baliwag–Candaba Road in 2020. Category invites spam content. Category creator has been blocked due to continued uploading of out of scope and DW-problematic files thru his "alternate account". All files have been moved to Category:Rehabilitation-improvement of Baliwag–Candaba Road in 2020. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Category:Rehabilitation-improvement of Candaba-Baliuag Road (Paligui-San Agustin section) 2020
[edit]Unnecessary and excessive category that is redundant to Category:Rehabilitation-improvement of Baliwag–Candaba Road in 2020. Category invites spam content. Category creator has been blocked due to continued uploading of out of scope and DW-problematic files thru his "alternate account". All files have been moved to Category:Rehabilitation-improvement of Baliwag–Candaba Road in 2020. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Baliwag–Candaba Road (Baliwag segment) and invites spam, out of scope content too. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also its subcategory
- Category:Tangos, Santo Niño, San Roque & Hinukay, Baliuag, Bulacan Provincial Road during General Community Quarantine in Baliuag, Bulacan (all files have been moved there too). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Baliwag–Candaba Road encouraging redundancy and spam. All files have been moved there. Same applies to the following subcategories. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also
- Category:Baliuag, Bulacan-Candaba, Pampanga Road (Barangays Paligui-San Agustin, Candaba section)
- Category:Santo Niño, Baliuag, Bulacan to Bahay Pare, Candaba Pampanga Road
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Note that Judgefloro (talk · contribs) added out of scope and blog-type content in the two categories' discussion pages, which I will quote them here for future reference. On the verge of COM:WEBHOST?
Candaba Swamp Scenery, Landscape I prefer to describe in detail this International Bird Sanctuary, thusly - the details of the roads, connecting to each other, how to reach this Prime Tourist spot, that this is now passable unlike months before, what remains is the Candaba Viaduct portion being finished; This Swamp is marsh and wetlands devoted to rice and other farming during dry season but is submerged so deeply in waters during bad weather; one can reach this prime tourist destination from Baliuag to Candaba via this new road rushe due to Election 2016 Fever, about 18 kilometers of amazing scenery confronts the viewer, but due to the election loss of former mayor, there are lots of hunting that drives off the Migratory birds; it is just 2 kilometers from Paligui Candaba Hall and Chapel to reach the Bird Sanctuary; the San Agustin Bridge Bomba takes one to Neverlands, so beautiful, this Rio Grande or River of Pampanga and Creeks, all these never ever photographed in vivid details before Wikimedia has this first. --Judgefloro 15:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC) (talk)
Candaba Swamp Scenery, Landscape I prefer to describe in detail this International Bird Sanctuary, thusly - the details of the roads, connecting to each other, how to reach this Prime Tourist spot, that this is now passable unlike months before, what remains is the Candaba Viaduct portion being finished; This Swamp is marsh and wetlands devoted to rice and other farming during dry season but is submerged so deeply in waters during bad weather; one can reach this prime tourist destination from Baliuag to Candaba via this new road rushe due to Election 2016 Fever, about 18 kilometers of amazing scenery confronts the viewer, but due to the election loss of former mayor, there are lots of hunting that drives off the Migratory birds; it is just 2 kilometers from Paligui Candaba Hall and Chapel to reach the Bird Sanctuary; the San Agustin Bridge Bomba takes one to Neverlands, so beautiful, this Rio Grande or River of Pampanga and Creeks, all these never ever photographed in vivid details before Wikimedia has this first. --Judgefloro 16:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC) (talk)
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary and unused country-specific subcategory. As it's a multi-national ecommerce company such as Amazon, the main Shopee category is enough, and there won't be much media files needed on this topic in the long run anyway. Shopee is also not a company from the Philippines, so it may potentially be misleading and cause some confusion. Sloutsch (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Strange category contribution by now-blocked Judgefloro (talk · contribs) way back April 27, 2021. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Empty unused category Paper9oll (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Empty unused category Paper9oll (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Empty unused category Paper9oll (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
See Annam Digital Library, I always have to laugh whenever I see this category it's just so absurd and out of touch. 🤣🤣🤣 Anyhow, this is a vanity project by the Musée Annam sockfarm. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Now empty. Taivo (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
this shouldnt be a redirect like this. imo it should only become either the cat for the planet, or a dab page. (i found this page when i was trying to find mars the food company.) RZuo (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Disambig. It would be hard to call precedence between the planet and the Roman god. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Agree that it should be a dab category. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes it should be, just do it, its not controversial, see Commons:Category redirects#Inappropriate uses item 2. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Done: Disambiguated, as per discussion, into the god, the planet, the chocolate bar and company, a number of places, people, ships and other things. --rimshottalk 20:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The stadium was renamed to Huntington Bank Stadium Lectrician2 (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
moved.--RZuo (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Redundant category. Already PBR sub-category of Beer by brand. Ooligan (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
No opposition. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a ship of this name, but no images available for it. Easily confused with a discovery ship of the same dates (not an HMS) Broichmore (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Dt and the other 41.77.91.203 23:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- What do you want to discuss? --rimshottalk 21:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Gibberish name, unclear inclusion criteria. Could probably be renamed to “transgender bathroom discrimination” and purged of anything that isn’t directly related to that topic (which is… everything currently there, basically). Dronebogus (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am good! Why not! ---Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Should be renamed to “transgender military personnel”. Dronebogus (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am good! Why not! - --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Empty category, can be deleted. Content is deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Charles Henry Curtis - Orchids for everyone (1910) Elly (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Given that the only subcategory, Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Register, is not just for buildings but also contains memorials etc, wouldn't this category be better off at Category:Cultural heritage monuments in New Zealand? -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved to Category:Cultural heritage monuments in New Zealand. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be a duplicate of Category:New Calton Cemetery. Mike Peel (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: I was using New New Calton Burial Ground on wikipedia. Krok6kola (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Krok6kola: I've gone ahead and merged this with the existing category. I've left this CfD open for review. I don't care which category name we use here, but we shouldn't have two categories for the same place. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: OK, you can close this discussion! Krok6kola (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Krok6kola: I've gone ahead and merged this with the existing category. I've left this CfD open for review. I don't care which category name we use here, but we shouldn't have two categories for the same place. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Merged. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Category is irrelevant (no need for a category dealing with one individual speed control camera) and not objective (calling a speed control device "Pestsäule" is a joke) Zv0486~commonswiki (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Apparently the category deals with zones where parking is illegal and parked cars will be towed away. "Impounding zone" is not a common term to describe this.
This category might be merged into Category:Tow-away_signs ?
Zv0486~commonswiki (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category:Tow-away signs is probably fine. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Tow-away signs. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The category name isn't very clear (and I'm unclear on what it could potentially be used for), so it has a few images that don't seem very related to one another. Should this category be deleted, or is there a better name for it? - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- A better name might be "Objects protruding from walls", but I don't see anything protruding in most of the images. Even the one that does look like a protrusion is really just stuck onto the wall, I think. So unless better content is found, for me this is a delete. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
No reasonable content. No opposition. Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Error in naming. Correct name is "Things named after Baden-Württemberg by district" Johnj1995 (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- The correct name would actually be "Things named after districts of Baden-Württemberg"; the contents aren't named after Baden-Württemberg itself. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 and Johnj1995: I see. That is right. I created the category. It can be moved to "Things named after districts of Baden-Württemberg". Greets Triplec85 (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Things named after districts of Baden-Württemberg. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Category name not in English Auntof6 (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- maybe move to Category:Directors from Yemen.--RZuo (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that renaming to Category:Directors from Yemen is best. Marbletan (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was rename Estopedist1 (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The team will not be renamed until 2022. Core2021 (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is a confusing nomination. The nom erroneously moved Category:2019 Cleveland Indians season to Category:2019 Cleveland Guardians season in July and is now bringing it here for discussion? Yes, the Cleveland Indians will become the Cleveland Guardians, but not until the 2022 season. The page should be moved back to its original title without leaving a redirect. - Eureka Lott 14:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Not done: not done, does not reflect the occurrence. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Per the parent category Category:SVG information technology and the whole related category tree, this one should use "SVG" rather than "scalable" as well. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. Additionally, I think we can do without the examples part, it adds no information. Also, what does international mean? Non-US? Non-QUERTY? Non-Latin? I think we can do without that part, too. I propose: Category:SVG keyboard layouts. All SVG images of keyboard layouts can go there, including the handful of SVG QUERTY layouts we have. --rimshottalk 20:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Seems sensible to me. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:SVG keyboard layouts, per consensus. --rimshottalk 21:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The attached images violate copyright, and the rating is an attempt to promote only Osama Eid (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Then you need to nominate the files for deletion, the category will then be deleted if its empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted as empty. --rimshottalk 19:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me very much as a user category (that's why I have already added the user category tag), therefore it should be properly named. I suggest moving to Category:Pictures by User:Lupus in Saxonia. Regards, Kleeblatt187 (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I do not see any justified – according to Wiki - Commons Media guidelines comprehensible situation for this application. This type of category is common on Wiki Commons Where exactly is and has this been defined - that this does not work as before?? – (Directive) - I would ask you to leave everything as it is. Kind connected greetings --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)17:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- My suggestion is based on recommendations at Commons:User category and my only intention is to clarify that this is user category. I'm not talking about its content, not at all. And I'm also not talking about deleting anything. Best wishes, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I can live with that! Please make sure only as an applicant of this idea that there is a redirection from all my pictures - the old to the new category! -I don't feel like changing many thousands of pictures in the link. That would be "life's work"! (Especially since the link in the pictures was stored as a meta!) – Kind regards from --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- My suggestion is based on recommendations at Commons:User category and my only intention is to clarify that this is user category. I'm not talking about its content, not at all. And I'm also not talking about deleting anything. Best wishes, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
After months after the application by a "USER" regarding renaming, I suggest to the administrator to leave everything as it is and was. The image space "Pictures Lupus in Saxonia" – is set as a hidden file on Wikimedia. For everyone from my point of view immediately recognizable that it is a user image file. I ask the question about the - "poodle core" – or - "Where is the beef??" – From my point of view, we should use all our life energy for more meaningful things.
Kind greetings that come from the heart from --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know, why this category is to be discussed. I recommend to rename the category to Category:Pictures by Lupus in Saxonia (without the namespace "User:"). The necessary template {{User category}} is used and there is no guideline for category names of user categories. The word "by" may be useful to show that's a category of a person/user. --XRay 💬 05:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Done @Kleeblatt187: Category renamed to Category:Pictures by Lupus in Saxonia and template {{User category}} added. This (old) category (Category:Pictures Lupus in Saxonia) can be deleted, if you like. --XRay 💬 14:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Fine with me. Thank you for the third opinion. I guess this discussion may be closed now. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I’m not really sure what to do with this category, but it obviously should be renamed to something if it is to be kept— maybe “kilts worn by transgender people?” Dronebogus (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why not. Is ok! ---Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in November 2021 as empty. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Useless personal category, should be deleted. Dronebogus (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- If you see it that way! Is ok! World peace!--Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Already deleted in November 2021 as empty. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Unnecessary category, no realistic use. Dronebogus (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Already deleted in November 2021 as empty. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also: Category:PD files
I don't see the need of this category. We already have categories for each license template, like Category:PD textlogo and Category:CC-SA-1.0. Jonteemil (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. I don't see the use of it and it's barely in use anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete – Unnecessary category. Almost every file on Commons will be either public domain or Creative Commons. And those that use other Free licenses can be easily identified. Senator2029 13:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- i redirected Category:PD files.
Speedy delete all other nonsense.--RZuo (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
deleted.--RZuo (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Category is empty. Mish-FCTM (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Mish-FCTM: I see that it is empty because it was moved to a new name. Is there any reason not to keep this as a redirect? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Mish-FCTM and Auntof6: let the redirect stays, eg see de:Alexei Sergejewitsch Pomerko--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep redirect GeorgHH • talk 18:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
This category contains only one entry, Category:Paintings by city of location. Since it doesn't appear that there are any "Paintings from <city>" categories, I think the subcat is enough and we don't need this one. Auntof6 (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- since Category:Paintings by country contains Category:Paintings by depicted country, i think Category:Paintings of cities can be a subcat of Category:Paintings by city. RZuo (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Auntof6: i'm closing this and leaving the categories as they are. feel free to reopen if you disagree.--RZuo (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Superfluous to Category:Miniature railways, as the conventional use of "Miniature railways" within its field implies ridable. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Optimist on the run: , per past comment at Category talk:Ridable miniature railways Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley and Optimist on the run: enwiki en:miniature railway is redirected to en:ridable miniature railway. Terminologically, the term "ridable miniature railway" sounds tautological (as already implied at above-mentioned comments). Maybe we should notify enwiki to get their article renamed to "miniature railway".--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley and Estopedist1: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
category re-named, nominated for rapid deletion Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Good idea Euryrel (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Lobsterthermidor and Euryrel: Closed (speedy delete) Josh (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Bruce (Marquess of Ailesbury) arms, request rapid deletion Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Good idea Euryrel (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Lobsterthermidor and Euryrel: Closed (speedy delete) Josh (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Moved to cat Category:Bruce arms (duplicate cat), request rapid deletion Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Good idea Euryrel (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Lobsterthermidor and Euryrel: Closed (speedy delete) Josh (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
This category should be deleted. Namuwiki uses CC-BY-NC-SA. It's noncommercial license. 221.133.172.112 05:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- this is deletion request not category-for-discussion. However, one file (File:나무위키 서버 폭주(렉)-2.png) is marked as {{PD-shape}}. So we can keep this category anyway--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
-2.png){kind=link}
@Estopedist1: Closed (no consensus to delete) Josh (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Delete and upmerge to Category:Aircraft at Imperial War Museum Duxford, as it was before. "Aircraft by aircraft type" is a pointless tautology. All this does is to split the files away from the categories (making categorisation harder) and mostly it makes navigation paths longer for readers. There is no advantage to having two categories here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Likewise Category:Aircraft at RAF Museum Cosford by aircraft type, Category:Aircraft by type by location (and probably others) Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Very unhelpful over categorisation that makes image sorting extremely difficult. Members of the public take photos with bad file names (not knowing what the aircraft types are), I have been working recently towards sorting them in to their correct categories (my main aim is searching for images for Wikipedia articles, I have found quite a few). There are almost 200 museum aircraft collection categories, they follow a parent category structure, the Cosford and Duxford type categories made them the two odd ones out. I have repopulated the original categories as allowed by the CFD template and was also advised by a Commons admin to do the same after another problem category discussion.
- I appreciate that there is a backlog but this CFD has been unactioned for almost four months, to make any progress editors will have to be bold and undo categorisation against consensus and standing convention in future. Nimbus227 (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley and Nimbus227: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Clarification: When I first closed this, I missed the inclusion of Category:Aircraft by type by location. As this is a different beast than the other two categories mentioned, I am only applying this CfD to Category:Aircraft at Imperial War Museum Duxford by aircraft type and Category:Aircraft at RAF Museum Cosford by aircraft type. If it is felt we should still do something with Category:Aircraft by type by location, a new CfD specific to that category would be far more appropriate to cover its peculiarities. Josh (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
This must be Delete as a misleading category. There is no such road as "Plaridel–Calumpit Road". It is not even present in both Google Maps and OpenStreetMap, which means the creator of the category, JFVelasquez Floro (talk · contribs), just made a conjectural name of a road that is not based on sources or facts. The road itself is not named (an unnamed road) in both online maps, hence all files of this and other similar categories (listed below) are instead moved (by me) to the categories of barangays where the segments of the road are located (Barangays Dampol, Rueda, Buguion, and Sergio Bayan). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also the following
- Category:Plaridel - Calumpit Road (Calumpit section) during modified enhanced community quarantine
- Category:Plaridel - Calumpit Road (Plaridel section) during modified enhanced community quarantine
- Category:Construction of Plaridel - Calumpit, Bulacan via San Marcos Road (misleading because there is no construction, only maintenance repairs)
- Category:Dampol - Rueda, Plaridel, Bulacan Municipal and Farm-to-Market Roads (Construction of Plaridel - Calumpit, Bulacan via San Marcos Road) (ditto)
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
As with the parent category previously, either this or Category:Mushkpuri Top is redundant, and one should be deleted or redirected. Alternate spellings don't justify duplicates. Sumanuil (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Sumanuil: Category:Mushkpuri Top to be merged into Category:Mukeshpuri Top. Solution per en:Mukeshpuri. Besides, maybe better name would be "Summit of Mukeshpuri"?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be better. Sumanuil (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Sumanuil and Estopedist1: Closed (merge Category:Mushkpuri Top into Category:Mukeshpuri Top) Josh (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Should be merged into Category:Naria (Gastropoda) William Avery (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Although the designation "Category:genus (gastropod)" is commonly used, as I have done many times, when creating a new category with disambiguation for gastropods (in accordance with the en.wikipedia), Christian Ferrer has already used a few times the designation "Category:genus (Gastropoda)". There is nothing wrong with this, except that in the en.wikipedia the template {{Commons category}} cannot be used in this case. Instead one has to use the template {{Commons category|genus (Gastropoda)}}. Such a designation in the Commons as (Gastropoda) then goes down from genus to species. This is no problem for me, but this may be tricky in the future for any novice struggling with the intricacies of the wiki language. Better to keep it simple in the future. Anyway, what is done, is done. In this case, a merging could be accepted. JoJan (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- In fact I was not aware of a common way, I have no preference. If the designation "Category:genus (gastropod)" is commonly used, I have no objections to use it next times, and no objection that Category:Naria (Gastropoda) be merged into Category:Naria (gastropod) in order to respect the common use. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Naria (Gastropoda) to be merged with Category:Naria (gastropod) (enwiki style). Solution per enwiki--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- In fact I was not aware of a common way, I have no preference. If the designation "Category:genus (gastropod)" is commonly used, I have no objections to use it next times, and no objection that Category:Naria (Gastropoda) be merged into Category:Naria (gastropod) in order to respect the common use. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
@William Avery, Christian Ferrer, JoJan, and Estopedist1: Closed (merge Category:Naria (Gastropoda) into Category:Naria (gastropod)) Josh (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
It has not historical record. It was the name of the article in Wikipedia, without sources, for a long time. Some recent references use it because of the time it has been used in Wikipedia, which has contributed to spread the error. Now neither the Spanish nor the Portuguese Wikipedia use it. It's discouraged. Please, delete it and protect it cause the user Tm creates it again, as you can see in the history. He cannot just create a redirecting category for every name he finds on the Internet. Is he going to create 40 categories? Neither Commons is the place nor redirecting categories are the way to explain that there are several references with several names. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Línea internacional La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca d'Alva Lojwe (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- So, i´am the one that is "unbereable, obsessive and unpolite actitude" and to asked to "Please, stay away from me.", after i, today August 21 2021, reverted your acts of nominating to deletion versions of 2 images previously uploaded by other users, marking them as duplicates of more recent versions of the same image but uploaded by you, as said yourself as you tought that you "didn't see necessary to have all those editions, which are pretty similar and yet when were your versions that were marked as duplicates you said that "It is not a duplicate. They are diferent.
- So, you that asked ""Please, stay away from me.", and what was your next action action??? Internalize that your actions were wrong? Of course not as you reopened this subject that is closed for several months for mere spite, rancor and a "unbereable, obsessive and unpolite actitude", liken when you had the sneaky attitude of moving a name that was created by a third user, after all what was discussed and when this DR is open, speaks volumes about your attitudes.
- Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Línea internacional La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca d'Alva is clear and was closed as keep, but as dont care about discussion when goes against you (like in the deletion request linked above and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_85#User:Tm's_vandalism, so lets go again.
- Category:Línea internacional La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca d'Alva is sourced from the spanish Royal Decree 1934/2000 where this line is called línea férrea La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca de Alba.
- Category:Linha Internacional de Barca d’Alva a La Fregeneda e a Salamanca is backed up by sources "Silva, J.R. e Ribeiro, M. (2008). Os comboios de Portugal - Volume I. 3ª Edição.Terramar.Lisboa" and the quote of "Nesse mesmo dia inaugurou-se a Linha Internacional de Barca d’Alva a La Fregeneda e Salamanca, o que permitia assim a ligação, através da Linha do Douro à rede ferroviária espanhola e, consequentemente, ao resto da Europa", taken from pages 5 and 6 of "OLIVEIRA, NICOLE CATHERINE DIAS. SOLUÇÕES PARA A ESTABILIZAÇÃO DE TALUDES EM LINHAS FÉRREAS (PDF). Porto: Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto. Tm (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Línea Pocinho-La Fuente de San Esteban and Category:Pocinho-La Fuente de San Esteban Line are valid as said in the first discussion of this subject, open by me in the portuguese Wikipedia, where other user (the same user that moved this article from "Linha Internacional de Pocinho a La Fuente de San Esteban" to "Linha internacional de Barca d'Alva-La Fregeneda a La Fuente de San Esteban") said that "Vamos por partes, porque a questão é complicada. Do ponto de vista histórico, faz sentido incluir o lanço do Pocinho até Barca de Alva como parte da linha internacional, porque foi tudo inaugurado ao mesmo tempo. Ambos os troços foram construídos pelo sindicato portuense, que acreditava que a linha até Salamanca iria transformar a cidade invicta num grande centro portuário do Noroeste peninsular. Porém, a linha nunca foi o grande eixo internacional que se previa, apesar de até terem sido feitos alguns comboios internacionais com sucesso, como o famoso rápido do Porto a Medina. Ou seja, apesar de na teoria o lanço entre Pocinho e Barca de Alva ser parte uma linha internacional, na prática foi quase totalmente uma extensão da Linha do Douro, com uma importância muito maior a nível regional, servindo o extremo Norte da Beira Alta."
Again you make several claims with zero sources to back you up.
- First, saying that a "name was discouraged in Spanish Wikipedia cause it may lead readers to error", maybe its better for you to say that to the spanish state as in their laws they call this line as línea férrea La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca de Alba or used by the European Federation of Associations of Industrial and Technical Heritage in spanish.
- "Linha Internacional de Barca d’Alva a La Fregeneda e a Salamanca" is cited in portuguese article with 2 sources, per above, so the "argument" that this name is used because i showed it down other users yhroats is fully erroneous, as you know pretty well it was talked in the discussion page, but facts dont stop you saying that kind of things. If this names are so confusing then why did you add, a month ago, the names "Línea Barca de Alba-Salamanca" and "Línea Oporto-Salamanca", the last one, using your arguments, a even worst as it compreends the portuguese "Linha do Douro"? Why your double standards? If its me that add a name to the portuguese Wikipedia can be, by your standards, bullying, what are your addictions of similar names to spanish wikipedia?is what.
- The other names were discussed in the portuguese article and are equally valid, but again, even after i opened this deletion request merely stating facts, you again attack my character, i feel free to point out why you should not be much trusted about your actions, but what can be expected from someone that
- 1- Fails to quote properly the locations of the train station even when presented with a source
- 2- Made the claim that the builders and operators of this line were also spanish repeting the same claim and making confusion between en:Subsidy:government incentive with en:share capital only stopping your actions after i pointed the minutes of constitution of the railway line operator where was clearly specified that the shareholders were all portuguese.
- 3-used a blog to quote the newspaper of the wrong year, instead of the correct one and when, after correcting this glaring mistake, i pointed this amateur mistake, you called me ridiculous.
- And now if correcting your mistakes, pointing your double standards and actions is being disruptive, arrogant and obsessive behaviour, so be it.
- But remember, it was not you that started the original discussion on the portuguese Wikipedia, it was not you that wrote and sourced all the material present in that article but instead was me and other users that made use of that page to discuss the article instead of, like you, make constant complains, but it is you that tries to, for whatever reason, to delete this sourced and valid names, be it in the portuguese Wikipedia claiming that this names lead to confusion (but it seems that you adding that same names to spanish wikipedia causes no confusion, trying to supress valid names in Wikidata and now here. Tm (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
@Lojwe, Tm, Ajpvalente, and Tuvalkin: Closed (no consensus to change current status) Josh (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
It has not historical record. It was the name of the article in Wikipedia, without sources, for a long time. Some recent references use it because of the time it has been used in Wikipedia, which has contributed to spread the error. Now neither the Spanish nor the Portuguese Wikipedia use it. It's discouraged. Please, delete it and protect it cause the user Tm creates it again, as you can see in the history. He cannot just create a redirecting category for every name he finds on the Internet. Is he going to create 40 categories? Neither Commons is the place nor redirecting categories are the way to explain that there are several references with several names. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Línea internacional La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca d'Alva Lojwe (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- So, i´am the one that is "unbereable, obsessive and unpolite actitude" and to asked to "Please, stay away from me.", after i, today August 21 2021, reverted your acts of nominating to deletion versions of 2 images previously uploaded by other users, marking them as duplicates of more recent versions of the same image but uploaded by you, as said yourself as you tought that you "didn't see necessary to have all those editions, which are pretty similar and yet when were your versions that were marked as duplicates you said that "It is not a duplicate. They are diferent.
- So, you that asked ""Please, stay away from me.", and what was your next action action??? Internalize that your actions were wrong? Of course not as you reopened this subject that is closed for several months for mere spite, rancor and a "unbereable, obsessive and unpolite actitude", liken when you had the sneaky attitude of moving a name that was created by a third user, after all what was discussed and when this DR is open, speaks volumes about your attitudes.
- Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Línea internacional La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca d'Alva is clear and was closed as keep, but as dont care about discussion when goes against you (like in the deletion request linked above and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_85#User:Tm's_vandalism, so lets go again.
- Category:Línea internacional La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca d'Alva is sourced from the spanish Royal Decree 1934/2000 where this line is called línea férrea La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca de Alba.
- Category:Linha Internacional de Barca d’Alva a La Fregeneda e a Salamanca is backed up by sources "Silva, J.R. e Ribeiro, M. (2008). Os comboios de Portugal - Volume I. 3ª Edição.Terramar.Lisboa" and the quote of "Nesse mesmo dia inaugurou-se a Linha Internacional de Barca d’Alva a La Fregeneda e Salamanca, o que permitia assim a ligação, através da Linha do Douro à rede ferroviária espanhola e, consequentemente, ao resto da Europa", taken from pages 5 and 6 of "OLIVEIRA, NICOLE CATHERINE DIAS. SOLUÇÕES PARA A ESTABILIZAÇÃO DE TALUDES EM LINHAS FÉRREAS (PDF). Porto: Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto. Tm (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Línea Pocinho-La Fuente de San Esteban and Category:Pocinho-La Fuente de San Esteban Line are valid as said in the first discussion of this subject, open by me in the portuguese Wikipedia, where other user (the same user that moved this article from "Linha Internacional de Pocinho a La Fuente de San Esteban" to "Linha internacional de Barca d'Alva-La Fregeneda a La Fuente de San Esteban") said that "Vamos por partes, porque a questão é complicada. Do ponto de vista histórico, faz sentido incluir o lanço do Pocinho até Barca de Alva como parte da linha internacional, porque foi tudo inaugurado ao mesmo tempo. Ambos os troços foram construídos pelo sindicato portuense, que acreditava que a linha até Salamanca iria transformar a cidade invicta num grande centro portuário do Noroeste peninsular. Porém, a linha nunca foi o grande eixo internacional que se previa, apesar de até terem sido feitos alguns comboios internacionais com sucesso, como o famoso rápido do Porto a Medina. Ou seja, apesar de na teoria o lanço entre Pocinho e Barca de Alva ser parte uma linha internacional, na prática foi quase totalmente uma extensão da Linha do Douro, com uma importância muito maior a nível regional, servindo o extremo Norte da Beira Alta."
Again you make several claims with zero sources to back you up.
- First, saying that a "name was discouraged in Spanish Wikipedia cause it may lead readers to error", maybe its better for you to say that to the spanish state as in their laws they call this line as línea férrea La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca de Alba or used by the European Federation of Associations of Industrial and Technical Heritage in spanish.
- "Linha Internacional de Barca d’Alva a La Fregeneda e a Salamanca" is cited in portuguese article with 2 sources, per above, so the "argument" that this name is used because i showed it down other users yhroats is fully erroneous, as you know pretty well it was talked in the discussion page, but facts dont stop you saying that kind of things. If this names are so confusing then why did you add, a month ago, the names "Línea Barca de Alba-Salamanca" and "Línea Oporto-Salamanca", the last one, using your arguments, a even worst as it compreends the portuguese "Linha do Douro"? Why your double standards? If its me that add a name to the portuguese Wikipedia can be, by your standards, bullying, what are your addictions of similar names to spanish wikipedia?is what.
- The other names were discussed in the portuguese article and are equally valid, but again, even after i opened this deletion request merely stating facts, you again attack my character, i feel free to point out why you should not be much trusted about your actions, but what can be expected from someone that
- 1- Fails to quote properly the locations of the train station even when presented with a source
- 2- Made the claim that the builders and operators of this line were also spanish repeting the same claim and making confusion between en:Subsidy:government incentive with en:share capital only stopping your actions after i pointed the minutes of constitution of the railway line operator where was clearly specified that the shareholders were all portuguese.
- 3-used a blog to quote the newspaper of the wrong year, instead of the correct one and when, after correcting this glaring mistake, i pointed this amateur mistake, you called me ridiculous.
- And now if correcting your mistakes, pointing your double standards and actions is being disruptive, arrogant and obsessive behaviour, so be it.
- But remember, it was not you that started the original discussion on the portuguese Wikipedia, it was not you that wrote and sourced all the material present in that article but instead was me and other users that made use of that page to discuss the article instead of, like you, make constant complains, but it is you that tries to, for whatever reason, to delete this sourced and valid names, be it in the portuguese Wikipedia claiming that this names lead to confusion (but it seems that you adding that same names to spanish wikipedia causes no confusion, trying to supress valid names in Wikidata and now here. Tm (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
@Lojwe, Tm, Ajpvalente, and Tuvalkin: Closed (no consensus to change current status) Josh (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
It has not historical record. It was the name of the article in Wikipedia, without sources, for a long time. Some recent references use it because of the time it has been used in Wikipedia, which has contributed to spread the error. Now neither the Spanish nor the Portuguese Wikipedia use it. It's discouraged. Please, delete it and protect it cause the user Tm creates it again, as you can see in the history. He cannot just create a redirecting category for every name he finds on the Internet. Is he going to create 40 categories? Neither Commons is the place nor redirecting categories are the way to explain that there are several references with several names. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Línea internacional La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca d'Alva Lojwe (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- So, i´am the one that is "unbereable, obsessive and unpolite actitude" and to asked to "Please, stay away from me.", after i, today August 21 2021, reverted your acts of nominating to deletion versions of 2 images previously uploaded by other users, marking them as duplicates of more recent versions of the same image but uploaded by you, as said yourself as you tought that you "didn't see necessary to have all those editions, which are pretty similar and yet when were your versions that were marked as duplicates you said that "It is not a duplicate. They are diferent.
- So, you that asked ""Please, stay away from me.", and what was your next action action??? Internalize that your actions were wrong? Of course not as you reopened this subject that is closed for several months for mere spite, rancor and a "unbereable, obsessive and unpolite actitude", liken when you had the sneaky attitude of moving a name that was created by a third user, after all what was discussed and when this DR is open, speaks volumes about your attitudes.
- Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Línea internacional La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca d'Alva is clear and was closed as keep, but as dont care about discussion when goes against you (like in the deletion request linked above and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_85#User:Tm's_vandalism, so lets go again.
- Category:Línea internacional La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca d'Alva is sourced from the spanish Royal Decree 1934/2000 where this line is called línea férrea La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca de Alba.
- Category:Linha Internacional de Barca d’Alva a La Fregeneda e a Salamanca is backed up by sources "Silva, J.R. e Ribeiro, M. (2008). Os comboios de Portugal - Volume I. 3ª Edição.Terramar.Lisboa" and the quote of "Nesse mesmo dia inaugurou-se a Linha Internacional de Barca d’Alva a La Fregeneda e Salamanca, o que permitia assim a ligação, através da Linha do Douro à rede ferroviária espanhola e, consequentemente, ao resto da Europa", taken from pages 5 and 6 of "OLIVEIRA, NICOLE CATHERINE DIAS. SOLUÇÕES PARA A ESTABILIZAÇÃO DE TALUDES EM LINHAS FÉRREAS (PDF). Porto: Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto. Tm (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Línea Pocinho-La Fuente de San Esteban and Category:Pocinho-La Fuente de San Esteban Line are valid as said in the first discussion of this subject, open by me in the portuguese Wikipedia, where other user (the same user that moved this article from "Linha Internacional de Pocinho a La Fuente de San Esteban" to "Linha internacional de Barca d'Alva-La Fregeneda a La Fuente de San Esteban") said that "Vamos por partes, porque a questão é complicada. Do ponto de vista histórico, faz sentido incluir o lanço do Pocinho até Barca de Alva como parte da linha internacional, porque foi tudo inaugurado ao mesmo tempo. Ambos os troços foram construídos pelo sindicato portuense, que acreditava que a linha até Salamanca iria transformar a cidade invicta num grande centro portuário do Noroeste peninsular. Porém, a linha nunca foi o grande eixo internacional que se previa, apesar de até terem sido feitos alguns comboios internacionais com sucesso, como o famoso rápido do Porto a Medina. Ou seja, apesar de na teoria o lanço entre Pocinho e Barca de Alva ser parte uma linha internacional, na prática foi quase totalmente uma extensão da Linha do Douro, com uma importância muito maior a nível regional, servindo o extremo Norte da Beira Alta."
Again you make several claims with zero sources to back you up.
- First, saying that a "name was discouraged in Spanish Wikipedia cause it may lead readers to error", maybe its better for you to say that to the spanish state as in their laws they call this line as línea férrea La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca de Alba or used by the European Federation of Associations of Industrial and Technical Heritage in spanish.
- "Linha Internacional de Barca d’Alva a La Fregeneda e a Salamanca" is cited in portuguese article with 2 sources, per above, so the "argument" that this name is used because i showed it down other users yhroats is fully erroneous, as you know pretty well it was talked in the discussion page, but facts dont stop you saying that kind of things. If this names are so confusing then why did you add, a month ago, the names "Línea Barca de Alba-Salamanca" and "Línea Oporto-Salamanca", the last one, using your arguments, a even worst as it compreends the portuguese "Linha do Douro"? Why your double standards? If its me that add a name to the portuguese Wikipedia can be, by your standards, bullying, what are your addictions of similar names to spanish wikipedia?is what.
- The other names were discussed in the portuguese article and are equally valid, but again, even after i opened this deletion request merely stating facts, you again attack my character, i feel free to point out why you should not be much trusted about your actions, but what can be expected from someone that
- 1- Fails to quote properly the locations of the train station even when presented with a source
- 2- Made the claim that the builders and operators of this line were also spanish repeting the same claim and making confusion between en:Subsidy:government incentive with en:share capital only stopping your actions after i pointed the minutes of constitution of the railway line operator where was clearly specified that the shareholders were all portuguese.
- 3-used a blog to quote the newspaper of the wrong year, instead of the correct one and when, after correcting this glaring mistake, i pointed this amateur mistake, you called me ridiculous.
- And now if correcting your mistakes, pointing your double standards and actions is being disruptive, arrogant and obsessive behaviour, so be it.
- But remember, it was not you that started the original discussion on the portuguese Wikipedia, it was not you that wrote and sourced all the material present in that article but instead was me and other users that made use of that page to discuss the article instead of, like you, make constant complains, but it is you that tries to, for whatever reason, to delete this sourced and valid names, be it in the portuguese Wikipedia claiming that this names lead to confusion (but it seems that you adding that same names to spanish wikipedia causes no confusion, trying to supress valid names in Wikidata and now here. Tm (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I do not get it, what is in discussion in here? The name of the category? In my opinion, already stated above by Tm, the category is correct, as it should only correspond to the line between Barca de Alva and La Fuente de San Esteban. Best regards, -- Ajpvalente (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Lojwe needs to be brought to AN/U. Wasted everybody’s time in both Wikipedias with this bizarre obsession and now seems to be trying to do it in Commons. Yet it wont fly here. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
@Lojwe, Tm, Ajpvalente, and Tuvalkin: Closed (no consensus to change current status) Josh (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Categories for sculptures in the Americas
[edit]- Category:Sculptures in the Americas
- Category:Sculptures in the Americas by color
- Category:Busts in the Americas by color
- Category:Brown busts in the Americas
- Category:Colorful busts in the Americas
- Category:Green busts in the Americas
- Category:Brown sculptures in the Americas
- Category:Colorful sculptures in the Americas
- Category:Green sculptures in the Americas
Sculptures do not need to be categorized as being in the Americas. There are no entries for things that cross continental borders, so categorizing by "Americas" isn't needed. I list above the ones I propose for deletion. The only categories in the subtree under Category:Sculptures in the Americas that aren't included here are for either North America or the United States. This proposal is in line with several other "Americas" categories that have been deleted before. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Visibly, this is just a problem of ethnocentrism. As an Anglo-Saxon, you divide America in North and South. Other cultures, especially Romance ones (the ones by far the most concerned) just see one America. As there are just four English speaking countries in the continental America, obviously, the vision of one country, the one that consider itself as America, would count more than the vision of almost twenty other countries (not counting islands). The division of North and South can be seen as artificial as there is not a single one that could put everyone agreeing. Panama isthmus in the middle of Panama, border between Panama and Colombia? And what about the islands? Trinidad, 11 km from the "South American" shore should belong to North America? Where is the sixth flag of the olympic flag? The fact that English is the language used in Commons shouldn't be the reason to put a division in the middle of Latin countries that don't recognize it. --Birdie (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- There are no entries for things that cross continental borders, just remember the border between Panama and Colombia was just created in 1903 when the USA helped the separatist movement to create a state where they could build the canal they needed. Before then, Panama isthmus and Dairen mountains were both in the middle of Nueva Granada then Colombia. --Birdie (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe it wasn't clear, but I meant that there are no entries in these categories for things that cross continental borders. There certainly are other things that do so, but here we are talking only about sculpture categories. A sculpture doesn't cross continental borders; it is in one place, so it can be placed in a category that is more specific than "the Americas". --Auntof6 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with ethnocentrism. It has to do with the standard way that Wikimedia projects categorize by continent. There are several ways of looking at what constitutes a continent. en:Continent#Number gives a good explanation of some. However, for consistency, Wikimedia projects need to use one standard, and the one that was chosen considers North and South America to be separate continents. That doesn't mean the other views aren't valid, it just means that this is what we use here. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- There are no entries for things that cross continental borders, just remember the border between Panama and Colombia was just created in 1903 when the USA helped the separatist movement to create a state where they could build the canal they needed. Before then, Panama isthmus and Dairen mountains were both in the middle of Nueva Granada then Colombia. --Birdie (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete There's no reason for these anymore than Category:Sculptures in Eurasia, etc. We've dealt with this already repeatedly. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed with Themightyquill (talk · contribs). This is just creating more different groups of countries into different baskets. We group countries by a defined set of continents, and this has been clarified in several CfDs over the years. Josh (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted. ---- Themightyquill (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
It's not really clear to me what the difference is between this category and Category:Postal covers. So I'd like to merge this category into the later one. Since there's a lot of overlap and I think Category:Postal covers fits better with other related categories and what a postal envelope is more broadly. ("Envelope" is a pretty ambiguous term that can be applied to other things beside postal envelopes. So maybe this should become a DAB) Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose merge. If anything, postal covers are a subset of envelopes and should remain a subcat. The envelopes category includes subcategories not related to the post, such as Category:Service envelopes, Category:Red envelopes (which should probably be clarified because it isn't for just any envelope that happens to be red), Category:Photo envelopes, and Category:Manufacture of envelopes (which could be for postal or non-postal envelopes). In addition, some of the files are for completely different kinds of things that are called envelopes (these may even warrant separate categories). --Auntof6 (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also, is a completely blank envelope considered a postal cover? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Technically a postal cover is an envelope with an address that has passed through the mail. That said, in practice though no one is using the categories that way and whatever the technical term for a postal cover is, un-addressed and un-mailed envelopes are still also "postal covers." For instance some FDCs don't have addresses and haven't been mailed, but in practice are still considered postal covers. Even the various Wikipedia articles on envelopes have images of postal covers. Not blank, un-addressed or un-mailed envelopes. So it's really a distinction without a purpose. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also, is a completely blank envelope considered a postal cover? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Couldn't we use a clearer name like "mail envelopes" or "postal envelopes" ? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- I assume you mean for this category. If so then "mail envelopes" might work and then we can keep this one more general or a DAB page. Since there's other types of envelopes that often aren't mailed like wedding cards and funeral envelopes. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: I meant Category:Mail envelopes or Category:Postal envelopes instead of Category:Postal covers. I agree there are many envelopes that aren't sent in the mail. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm fine with creating Category:Mail envelopes or Category:Postal envelopes in conjunction with Category:Postal covers, but postal covers are a specific type of postal envelope that has been stamped and (or) mailed. So the category is still needed for that. Creating Category:Postal envelopes to separate non-mailed envelopes from other types would still be an improvement though. I don't see why Category:Postal covers couldn't go in it either. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: I meant Category:Mail envelopes or Category:Postal envelopes instead of Category:Postal covers. I agree there are many envelopes that aren't sent in the mail. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I assume you mean for this category. If so then "mail envelopes" might work and then we can keep this one more general or a DAB page. Since there's other types of envelopes that often aren't mailed like wedding cards and funeral envelopes. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I created Category:Postal envelopes per Themightyquill. My suggestion from here is to turn Category:Envelopes into a dab page that includes categories for other types of envelopes. For instance there's Category:Nuclear envelope and as well as a few others. I was going to do that, but couldn't figure out how to close this discussion and I didn't want to just leave it open. So if someone can close it and create the dab that would be great. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 and Themightyquill: Any objections to the solution proposed by Adamant1 (talk · contribs) here so we can close this? Josh (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: Fine by me. -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
@Adamant1, Auntof6, and Themightyquill: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Implausible category, redundant to Category:Upo. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
This discussion nomination also concerns Category:Tricycle drivers holding two Upo, another case of redundancy. Most files have been moved to Category:Tricycle drivers in the Philippines and Category:Upo. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Is "dairy product" a synonym for "milk product"? What are the differences? Can Category:Dairy beverages and Category:Milk-based drinks be merged? JopkeB (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- In another discussion we concluded that "dairy product" is a synonym for "milk product". But if we would merge them, then there would be a lot of subcategories. I suggest:
- We keep both categories.
- Category:Milk-based drinks is for drinks based on pure milk, with perhaps some flavour(s), but without processing, this category is about unprocessed milk (or at least what ordinary people would consider unprocessed milk, because in many countries there will always be some kind of making milk suitable and safe for consumption).
- Category:Dairy beverages is the parent category and also contains beverages that are based on milk that has been processed, like fermenting, baking, churning (to make butter and butter milk), yoghurt.
Since there was no reaction at all in over a year I close this discussion and I have implemented my suggestions. --JopkeB (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Both categories (Category:Dairy beverages and Category:Milk-based drinks) have been kept.
- They both have now the definitions as suggested above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JopkeB (talk • contribs) 12:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Marking Done for the bot. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Marking
This is a weirdly named and utterly pointless category. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment Can you elaborate on what makes the category weirdly named? The idea is to document the phenomenon of spelling the city's name this way, which is discussed briefly in w:San Jose, California#Name and wikt:San José#English. I'd say this category is more notable than many of the other subcategories of Category:Unusual spellings, considering that few if any of the occurrences of "San José" are unintentional typos. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Auntof6, I see that you just moved this category to Category:San José, California. Can you please undo the change? That wasn't the intention of this category, though I suppose Category:San José, California would be useful to have as a redirect to Category:San Jose, California. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- And would you please undo the 50 category moves that conflated this category with the much more general Category:San Jose, California? You've basically done everything {{Category for discussion}} says not to do, a mere 10 minutes after the category was proposed for non-speedy deletion.
:^)– Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- And would you please undo the 50 category moves that conflated this category with the much more general Category:San Jose, California? You've basically done everything {{Category for discussion}} says not to do, a mere 10 minutes after the category was proposed for non-speedy deletion.
- Thank you Auntof6! – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t think it’s pointless at all, in the understanding that this is in the context of "San José" within English text, of course. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: Ah, that's a good point. There are one or two images in the category in Vietnamese, where the acute is also atypical, but I don't mind removing them from the category if that makes the scope clearer. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 18:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep in some form, but the title should ideally be renamed to something that indicates that it's not for pictures of San Jose, but specifically the words "San José" with that spelling. I'm not sure what a better title is, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment All of these files belong in Category:San José (text) (distinct from Category:San Jose (text) for uses without the mark). This category is not exclusive to San Jose, California, but a subcategory Category:San José (text) representing San Jose, California would work nicely. Josh (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Consensus was to keep. No consensus on what if any renaming should be done. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
It is very confusing to have two categories that are practically indistinguishable in most cases. Yes, it's possible that some brands don't have manufacturing capability and some OEM manufacturers don't sell under their own brand, but those are the exception to the rule. We end up with a lot of subcategories that could be in either category, like Category:Apple Inc. products or Category:IKEA products. I'm open to all kinds of solutions, including merging them or providing a strict set of criteria specifying what goes where. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Just to point out another permutation, there are companies that have multiple brands. An example is The Coca-Cola Company, which has not only the Coca-Cola brand, but also Sprite, Minute Maid, Fanta, Dasani, and quite a few others that you can see in Category:The Coca-Cola Company products. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose merging these two. Brands and manufacturers are two different things. There may items that are both but there are also many that are only one or the other. For that reason they should remain separate categories. Josh (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts, Auntof6, and Joshbaumgartner: anything to change from the status quo?
- otherwise, both cats can be kept as is? surely most manufacturers only have one brand, but many manufacturers have multiple brands, so i think both trees can co-exist. RZuo (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that both trees can exist. Some things would be in both, where a manufacturer markets products under its company name (for example, products from IBM). -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose merge. I agree that the set of brands and set of manufacturers are not identical sets despite significant overlap. Entities can be placed under brands, manufacturers, or both as their nature dictates. Josh (talk)
- Oppose simple merging. Manufacturers can produce different brands and brands can be manufactured for by different companies. The same product can be sold under different brands. And to make things worse, these connections can change in time as brands are sold to other companies. It's all a big mess and I can understand the urge to "simplify" things by treating brand and manufacturer as one thing, but it's only going to create an even bigger mess elsewhere. El Grafo (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
No consensus to merge. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
The category holds files related to "police vans of Poland", in which we already have Category:Police vans in Poland as this category's mother category. As the two categories cover almost the same objects, the category should be merged with Category:Police vans in Poland . 廣九直通車 (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. Other subcategories in Category:Police vans by country are not unified. An advantage of category "Police vans of Poland" or Category:Police vans of Germany is, that we have a nice collection of police vans belonging to one country in one category, more convenient for a casual viewver. On the other hand, "police vans in Poland" has a lot of subcategories refering to peculiar cities. Pibwl (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Or should we delete Category:Police vans in Poland and move all the child-categories and files inside the category itself to Category:Police vans of Poland? After all, as police vehicles only operates in the country's own border, I think there's no need to keep both the "of" and "in" categories.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose merging. Category:Police vans of Poland is a broad relationship category (designed, manufactured, owned, or operated by, or located in the country), while Category:Police vans in Poland is specific to any police van depicted while actually in Poland. Police vans probably spend the majority of their time in their own country, but no reason to assume this is exclusively true. Josh (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @廣九直通車, Pibwl, and Joshbaumgartner: I think we should close this discussion with no actions to take. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- So be it. After all it's already been nearly 4 years.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus |  No consensus | |||
| Actions | none | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Useless/nonsensical category, maybe redirect to something like “transgender women in lingerie/corsets” or delete entirely Dronebogus (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why not. Is ok!- --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lupus in Saxonia: No, the current name indicates the category topic is a specific bodice that goes by the name "Transgender". Josh (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Additionally, "Bodice" should not be capitalized as it is in the current name. Josh (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Support rename to Category:Transgender people in bodices (per parent Category:Transgender people in lingerie and underwear). Josh (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)- Support rename Category:Transgender (Bra) to Category:Transgender people in brassieres for same reasoning. Josh (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support rename Category:Transgender (Bra) to Category:Transgender people in brassieres. This is overdue. DimiTalen 06:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus, Lupus in Saxonia, Joshbaumgartner, and DimiTalen: I think we should close this discussion as rename. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, please go ahead! Thanks, DimiTalen 08:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus, Lupus in Saxonia, Joshbaumgartner, and DimiTalen: I think we should close this discussion as rename. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions |  Rename Category:Transgender (Bodice) to Category:Transgender people in bodices Rename Category:Transgender (Bra) to Category:Transgender people in brassieres | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC) | |||