This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced admins.
Please remove this notice if it won't be needed in the future.

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This page provides a centralized place to discuss the naming convention of categories. Currently the naming conventions for categories are spread over the following pages:

Commons:Rename a category
Commons:Categories
~~Commons:Naming categories, which is still a draft~~ [Completely rejected, unworkable; see Talk page for acceptable suggestions]
~~Commons:By location category scheme, a "proposed Commons guideline or policy"~~ [inactive discussion, scheme rejected for general use]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (from the English Wikipedia)

Alternatives

For simple category rename requests, one can put the {{Move|New name|Reason|2013-06-02}} template in the source category. These can be discussed on the categories talk page or Category talk:Requested moves.
For non-controversial requests, e.g. inappropriate use of capital letters or plurals you may file a request at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands.
Deletion requests for categories are also found in Category:Non-media deletion requests. These should be listed here as well.

Listing a single category on this "Categories for discussion" page[edit]

I.	Add {{subst:cfd}} tag:
	Add the following code to the top of the category page. {{subst:cfd}} The easiest way for doing the next steps II, III and IV: After saving the category with {{subst:cfd}} the template will have created a link on cyan background. Click it (for step II), the template will create a subpage with instructions for editing and links (you must open it in new tabs or windows) for further steps.
II.	Create a subpage of "Categories for discussion" :
	Enter the name of the category that you wish to nominate for discussion, click on "Create the subpage", and follow the instructions given there. (eg Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/02/Category:Comics)
III.	Add a link to the sub-page in the "Discussion Request Log":
	To make your discussion visible here you have to add the newly created sub-page to Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/06. The log is sorted by date. Add the following code at the bottom without erasing the existing requests. Remember to save the page. {{Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/06/Category: CATEGORY-NAME }} (Where CATEGORY-NAME is the name of the category you tagged with {{cfd}}.) (eg {{Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/02/Category:Comics}})
IV.	Notify the creator with {{cdw}} tag:
	Sometimes it makes sense to notify the creator of a category on their talk page. Use the notify text suggest in the box at the top of the sub-page created in (II) above. {{subst:cdw\|Category:CATEGORY-NAME}} --~~~~ (Where CATEGORY-NAME is the name of the category you tagged with {{cfd}}.) (eg {{subst:cdw\|Category:Comics}} --~~~~)

Listing multiple categories on this "Categories for discussion" page[edit]

Perform all the operations above for the first category, then tag all the other related categories with

{{subst:cfd|Category: FIRST-CATEGORY-NAME }}

(eg {{subst:cfd|Category:Comics}} to category:Comic strips)

Note that if you want to have modifications in this list appear in your watchlist, for each new month and for each new item in the list you want to watch, you have to open the item for editing and click the watch tab.

Note that the {{cdw}} tag notifying the creators is not fully adapted to multiple discussion.

Closing a discussion[edit]

Typically, only users experienced in category discussions should close a discussion. However, if the discussion has led to a very clear consensus, other users should feel free to do so.

The following is the normal process to close a discussion. Not all steps are necessarily required nor need they be done on the same day, but in general this is the appropriate order.

Generally, wait at least two weeks since the discussion was started.
Assess the discussion, write a conclusion on the subpage; use "----" on a line above your conclusion to separate it from the general discussion.
Add {{cfdh}} and {{cfdf}} to the subpage
If necessary, make the relevant changes to categories (e.g. rename the categories, request the category renames at User talk:Category-bot, add {{category redirect|preferred name}} to the no longer used category name or synonyms, add {{speedy}} to empty categories (for misspellings and the like)). Alternatively, wait for the initiator to do it.
Remove the cfd notice from the categories pages and cross-reference the discussion on the category talk page(s), e.g.
{{Archive box|*[[Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/Category:Drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen|Categories for discussion (10/2009)]]}}.
Remove the subpage from the month page (e.g. Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10)
Add the subpage to the month page at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive.
Update category descriptions or Commons:Categories if needed.

Archive

Current Requests[edit]

May 2013[edit]

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Kristin Matej[edit]

Reasons for discussion request --Zajano (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to delete this category. This is a wrong name of this category. I created a new category: Category:Matej Kristín and removed files there. Thank you.

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Sakura[edit]

This category and most of its children (all but the ones specifically for Japan) should be renamed to Category:Cherry blossoms. The reason being, sakura is a Japanese term for cherry blossoms. The category description states: "This is a category for the Spring blossoming Japanese cherry trees, called sakura". Well, they are called sakura, but mostly by Japanese. On English Wikipedia, sakura redirects to w:Cherry blossom, and that article even clearly states in the lead: "A cherry blossom is the flower of any of several trees of genus Prunus, particularly the Japanese Cherry, Prunus serrulata, which is sometimes called sakura after the Japanese (桜 or 櫻; さくら)". The use of sakura is incorrect, and - with all due respect for the Japanese culture, which I am quite fond of myself - can be even somewhat offensive (I am about to create Category:Cherry blossoms in Korea, and I am pretty sure that should not be called "Sakura in Korea"... anyway, w:Cherry_blossom#South_Korea needs expansion, but that's OT here.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Category:Cherry Blossom and rename that to Category:Cherry blossom –⁠moogsi (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Chocolate of Moldova[edit]

underpopulated category, not necessary Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sure more than 1 pic will be uploaded eventually. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Food companies of Moldova[edit]

underpopulated cagtegory, not necessary Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Companies of Moldova by industry[edit]

unnecessary layer for a sparse category tree Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Has potential, and three subcats already. Keep. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Bucuria[edit]

underpopulated category, unnecessary Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I can provide further images of factory and headquarters if necessary. --Gikü (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

even 2 or 3 would allow the category to stay, as we simply dont want single image categories, which dont help the project. we dont have to show the company is notable, we just need to have more than 1 image.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no such minimum rule on Commons, see for example Category:People by name, and would only make real sense for deeper categorisation without other categories/dimensions, such as interiors of buildings. Images encapsulated in a category are just much easier to insert and list in multiple categories. But the name needs disambiguation as there exist a company and a commune with that name. The number of images is not a proof of notability, the fact that it has a wiki article much more. Few companies want their images in the public domain. --Foroa (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought differently. unless someone else feels this categorization is unnecessary, who is more familiar than i am with guidelines here, i withdraw my request.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn. That a category is underpopulated is in itself not a reason to remove it. If there is no reasonable expectation of the expansion of the category, that is worthy of discussion –⁠moogsi (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Gleason's Pictorial[edit]

This category, or many of its images, should be in the tree, "Images from periodicals", since that is a logical place for users to look for them. Hamblin (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pagoda of Buddha's Fragrance[edit]

User:颐园新居 said the proposed new name (Category:Tower of Buddhist Incense) is more specific. I don't know much about it. Make cat 08:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Both names seem to have currency in referring to Fo Xhang Ge, but Category:Tower of Buddhist Incense seems to be much more common. Would support a move to there with a redirect –⁠moogsi (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:한국의 명승지 이미지[edit]

Any Korean speakers got an idea about the purpose of this category? Machine translation give me "Scenic images of South Korea". –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently content was moved from Category:명승지, which never existed –⁠moogsi (blah) 14:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete and upmerge to existing parent (tourism in South Korea), or replace with Category:Scenery, or rename to Category:Scenery of South Korea per Category:Scenery of Hong Kong (that said, I consider the scenery categories pure rubbish... way too subjective). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Škoda 3Tr in Ostrava[edit]

empty category, there were no Škoda 3Tr trolleybuses in operation in Ostrava city Harold (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

deleted –⁠moogsi (blah) 22:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Monastery of Na’akuto La’ab[edit]

accidental creation Themightyquill (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

deleted –⁠moogsi (blah) 16:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Arsenal FC - Tottenham Hotspur FC rivalry[edit]

Reasons for discussion request : Mistake creation. Exist before with Category:North London derby. --Guiggz (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

deleted –⁠moogsi (blah) 16:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Hybrid libraries[edit]

Recommend deleting category. Basically, almost all modern libraries, certainly all national and academic libraries, are hybrid libraries. A standard modern non-private library has many books and periodicals as well as access to many databases, ebooks, ejournals and other formats of information such as DVD's, CD's and maps. DGtal (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In France we have special buildings that are called médiathèques (en:Multimedia library). They contain books and DVD, and sometimes are important buildings in towns or villages, with a social aim. It would be better to find another name for this category, why not Category:Multimedia library ? Jack ma (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Paddle wheel propellers[edit]

Delete as a nonsense made-up name. Paddle wheels are not propellers, they are distinct from this. Category:Paddle wheels is perfectly adequate already. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Support an upmerge into Category:Paddle wheels. A "propeller" as a mechanism is always the screw-type that rotates perpendicular to the direction of travel. However Category:Ship propellers includes propellers in the sense of "propulsion mechanism" and includes pump-jets, paddlewheels.... however there is no need to add a qualifier, it's already very clear what a paddle wheel is –⁠moogsi (blah) 16:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

As I have already exposed on Andy’s discussion page, paddle wheel propeller is not a term just made up, and contrary to his statement, restricting the expression paddle wheel to wheels driven by engines is not adequate, as this is certainly not the case for paddle wheel mills. --Abderitestatos (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday I had to revert your completely incorrect attempt to merge water wheels into paddle wheels. Please stop this, and don't try it again until you understand the difference between them.

Paddle wheels are driven by engines and cause a water flow. They are used to propel boats, but some (like the algae farm example) are also rarely found as simple pumps, on land.
Water wheels are driven by water flow and provide mechanical power to a mill etc. They are not used on boats.

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And why do you keep repeating what I just invalidated? --Abderitestatos (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Googling for a random phrase and finding a match from a Siamese-English Dictionary is not generally considered reliable evidence for anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Dictionaries are not generally considered reliable evidence for proving existence or meaning of a word? And engineers guides, patents etc. are not either? You cannot be serious. --Abderitestatos (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, neither Category:Paddle wheels nor Category:Paddle wheel propellers belong in Category:Paddle steamers, because there are paddle-wheel motor ships, too. --Abderitestatos (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was obvious what a paddle wheel is, in fact I almost included in my last comment that they are definitely distinct from water wheels, even though they are similar things in principle. The definitions Andy Dingley gives are correct. There is maybe some confusion because the blades on a water wheel can be called paddles (by analogy because they're flat surfaces for resisting water). I think the strong association between "paddle" and propulsion (the definition of the verb "paddle", the primary meaning of the noun) is enough to keep them logically separate (a water wheel does not do anything like paddling, for example). But really the fact that they are semantically separate is demonstrated simply by just doing an image search: "water wheel" brings up a lot of static mechanisms, "paddle wheel" gives you a lot of pictures of boats. There is no confusion between the terms in general use –⁠moogsi (blah) 16:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Google search results above have expired, but as long as we're playing that game:

"paddle wheel propeller" 23,700 results, mostly in the context of other methods of propulsion

"paddle wheel" 1,170,000 results

"paddle wheel mill" 57,600 results

"watermill" 3,370,000 results

I don't think there's an argument for renaming anything unless you're arguing that a "paddle wheel" and a "paddle wheel propeller" are different things –⁠moogsi (blah) 16:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As seen here, for example, water wheels may be distinguished into bucket wheels and paddle wheels; why should categories be prevented from reflecting this? A blade wheel on the other hand seems to be another quite different construction. --Abderitestatos (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it's confusing, that's why. Look in any English dictionary (and preferably not in one passage of a book about the history of kitchens which is discussing water wheels in the context of other water wheels) and you will find something like:

paddle wheel noun. a large steam-driven wheel with boards around its circumference, situated at the stern or side of a ship so as to propel the ship through the water by its rotation.

This is the single definition given (in the OED), because, out of context, this is what this word means. Yes, in a specific context it might mean something else, e.g. "a water wheel with paddles instead of buckets", or "any wheel with paddles on it", but that is not what it generally means. The categories should not be "prevented from reflecting this" difference in types of water wheels, if you think it is necessary, but the term "paddle wheel" is taken. It's occupied. You can't make it mean something else, it's nonsense –⁠moogsi (blah) 23:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

But there is not even a substantial difference in construction; any paddle wheel from a ship could just as well be used as a mill wheel, and vice versa, so there must be a category that subsumes all kinds of paddle wheels. And what other name might be suitible for such a category than Category:Paddle wheels? --Abderitestatos (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. You might as well claim that because a boat hull could be used as a chicken coop (many have been), we should merge boats into chicken coops!

If you really don't understand that waterwheels, watermills, paddle wheels and boats are different items and should be categorized separately, then please just stay away from such categories altogether. Andy Dingley (talk)

Paddle wheel propeller is the specific term for the items displayed there, which is, as exposed above, also used outside Wikicommons, and that is consistent with its upper category Ship propellers; Paddle wheel, by contrast, is ambiguous and therefore should only be used as a name for an umbrella category. Besides, as illustrated by the image below, Category:Paddle steamers as a superior category is just wrong, so would you kindly desist from reinserting it again. --Abderitestatos (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Now raised at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Andy_Dingley Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reversed the heirarchy so that paddle wheel steamers is now a subcategory of paddle wheels. Although paddle steamers where the most common incarnation, there were side wheel vessels powered by man and animal treadwheels. Nor are paddles propellers, that category has been removed and the category marine propulsion substituted. The category passenger ships have been removed from paddle steamers as many early warships were of the side paddle type.--KTo288 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cheese stoppers[edit]

There is no English term such as cheese stopper. there is a polish word, Koreczki "cork", which is sort of related to "cheese hedgehogs" or Kaseigel. rename to Koreczki Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised there is this lexical gap in English, I'd be perfectly happy with "cheesecorks" :) This is not a Polish concept AFAIK, it is quite popular in the UK at kids' parties or cheap buffets (probably less popular since the 70s, when people thought cheese and pineapple was a good combination). But you are quite right that there is apparently no English name for these things, despite having spawned the concept of a "cocktail sausage" (tiny sausages meant to be skewered on cocktail sticks like this) –⁠moogsi (blah) 15:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte[edit]

Rename to Category:Hamburg Museum was contested by User:Oursana; no longer an unambiguous fix per Commons:Rename a category Christoph Braun (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Das Museum hat immer noch den stiftungsrechtlichen Eigennamen "Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte". "Hamburg Museum" ist lediglich die Bezeichnung im Werbeauftritt. Deshalb sollte der offizielle Name - analog zum Artikel auf de:wp - auch Kategorienname bleiben. --Mogelzahn (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

+1--Oursana (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte renamed itself to Hamburg Museum in April, 2013 (see German press release). This CfD nomination succeeds an ongoing discussion on German Wikipedia. Opposing opinions on German Wikipedia are based on a pending change to the endowment treaty (the Hamburg Museum is part of the foundation Stiftung Historische Museen Hamburg). The discussion on German Wikipedia has not been resolved so far.

Commons:Categories and Commons:Language policy do not focus on this particular case. Relying on the proposal as in Commons:Naming categories#Language would lead to renaming the category to Hamburg Museum IMHO. Google Books ngram viewer for 'Hamburg Museum' Google Books ngram viewer for 'Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte'.

Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Christoph,auch durch Wiederholung wird es nicht richtiger. Das Museum verwendet die Bezeichnung "Hamburg Museum" in der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, wie sich aus der Pressemitteilung eindeutig ergibt. Es ist nicht der neue Name. An keiner Stelle spricht die Pressemitteilung davon, dass das Museum umbenannt worden ist. Klar, das Museum hat sich einen neuen Rufnamen zugelegt, der trendiger klingen soll, so wie Lena Meyer-Landrut auf ihren Platten als "Lena" firmiert und doch weiterhin einen auch Nachnamen hat. Von einer offiziellen Umbenennung ist jedoch nirgendwo etwas zu lesen. Und diese Umbenennung wäre aus meiner Sicht die Voraussetzung für eine Umbenennung der Kategorie. --Mogelzahn (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wäre nett, wenn du auf Englisch schriebest. /// Would be kind of you to write in English. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Mogelzahn, wie am 7. Mai bereits hier geschrieben, ist mir nicht klar, was du als "Beweis" der "offiziellen" Umbenennung akzeptierst. Wäre echt knorke von dir dazu eine Rückmeldung zu bekommen. Die Änderung des Stiftungsvertrages kann ich auch nicht beschleunigen, aber gerne eine schriftliche Stellungnahme seitens der Direktorin anfragen. /// Mogelzahn, as I wrote on May 7 here already, I don't quite understand what kind of "evidence" you want to see in order to prove an "official" renaming. Would be jolly good of you to get your response on this. I'm not able to accelerate the change of the treaty of endowment, but would be happy to request an official statement from the museum's director. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

1) Mein Englisch reicht nicht aus, um micht entsprechend auszudrücken (siehe auch meine Benutzerseite), verstehen kann ich es aber hinreichend. Dies ist im übrigen ein mehrsprachiges und kein englischsprachiges Projekt und deshalb sollte über die Umbenennung einer Kategorie, die ein in Deutschland befindliches Objekt betrifft auch auf deutsch diskutiert werden. 2) Hinreichend wäre in jedem Falle z.B. eine Veröffentlichung im Amtlichen Anzeiger oder eine Mitteilung des Senats an die Bürgerschaft oder ein Auszug aus dem Stiftungsregister oder sonst irgendein offizielles Dokument. Aber auch eine rezipierte Pressemitteilung der Stiftung Historische Museen, aus der hervorgeht, dass es sich wirklich um eine Umbenennung und nicht nur um ein Vermarktungslabel handelt würde mir schon reichen. Die von Dir immer wieder verlinkte Pressemitteilung bezieht sich aber lediglich auf das Vermarktungslabel. Dies stellt im übrigen auch Rike Wolf in ihrem neuen Hamburg-Buch fest, in dem sie etwas spöttisch schreibt, es handele sich bei "Hamburg Museum" lediglich um eine einen halboffiziellen Namen, der amerikanischen Touristen, die das "ch" im Wort "Geschichte" nicht aussprechen könnten, die Aussprache erleichtern solle. Das Museum heiße aber weiterhin "Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte". --Mogelzahn (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed rename seems reasonable. I don't speak German; how might this be ambiguous? Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose renaming to "Hambug Museum". A casual user would not be able to differentiate between "Hambug Museum", "Musems in Hamburg" or any other museum in Hamburg. --Foroa (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Shall we rename Category:Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery then? And Category:Walsall Art Gallery? Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The assumption is, that implementing the new name (as part of the new corporate identity) is part of Hamburg Museum's PR, rather than an "official" name. Mogelzahn argues that the name in the endowment treaty constitutes the "official" name. Yet, I fail to see how endowment treaties are relevant for renaming categories based on our current guidelines and policies.

Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

@Foroa I assume you meant "Hamburg Museum" rather than "Hambug Museum". By your logic we would have to rename Category:Museum of London because it looks similar to Category:Museums in London. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"Museum of London" is a poor name indeed, but long standing and still better than "London Museum". Commons is not here to support marketing campaigns or to give the impression that there is only one important museum in Hamburg. And after all, it is the name on the German Wikipedia. --Foroa (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can follow your logic. "Museum of London" is the actual name of the museum. It's not about making something up or support marketing campaigns. Also I don't see why "Hamburg Museum" implies that it's the only important museum in Hamburg. Per Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_Wikipedia it doesn't really matter if it's the name on German Wikipedia - the name of English Wikipedia is "Hamburg Museum" and the name might be different in other Wikipedias. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nein, das ist falsch. Der aktuelle Name des Museums ist weiterhin "Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte". Das Haus vermarktet sich lediglich selbst unter dem Label "Hamburg Museum". --Mogelzahn (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose renaming to "Hamburg Museum": As mentioned by Mogelzahn Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte seems still be the official name. According to Commons:Naming categories#Language (For subjects of only local relevance, proper names in the original language are used generally.) the official name is IMHO correct for category - Hamburg Museum without hyphen is not a proper local name. --Ajepbah (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose renaming to "Hamburg Museum": as I agree with all especially Mogelzahn, Ajepbah and Foroa, except Christoph Braun, who really doesn't put foreward any valid arguments for his renaming, even argues against legally valid documents as the endowment treaty. Like a company has to be adressed to by its registered name, the same applies of course to Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte. I am sure that the marketing changes considering the museum's name, have not been noticed by many people in Hamburg. So I doubt, that people know what is Hamburg Museum. And as I stated already on German WP, I did not like the solo sudden movement of the files. cfd should have been first.

And about the En: WP : as Foroa said the German WP has the key role in naming the museum.

Furthermore the en:WP doesn't give any references for the allegedly renaming and references refer even to Museum of Hamburg History:

The museum adopted the name hamburgmuseum, and initials hm, in 2006. In 2008 the museum runs a program called hm freunde (Society of friends of the museum of Hamburg history).^[1]

↑ Society of Friends of the Museum of Hamburg History, hamburgmuseum, accessed December 2011

See Freunde des Museums für Hamburgische Geschichte e.V.

See WP Project Site Wikipedia:Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte and museum's adress.

On the official Hamburg site the museum is called hamburgmuseum (Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte).

See museumsdienst-hamburg.de: Hamburg Museum – Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte.

See Museen für Geschichte: Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte

See de.facebook.com/hamburgmuseum: Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte / hamburgmuseum

See sub.uni-hamburg.de/bibliotheken:Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte (hamburgmuseum)

See telephone directory: hamburgmuseum (Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte)

As to the above mentioned Press release, the museum exactly states no renaming: von nun an konsequenten Verwendung des ,Rufnamens‘ Hamburg Museum verfährt das traditionsreiche Haus ähnlich wie andere bedeutende stadtgeschichtliche Museen z.B. in Amsterdam, Wien oder Oslo, die ihre Namen knapp, einprägsam und in alle Sprachen leicht übersetzbar formuliert machen. Für administrative Zwecke wie z.B. Urkunden, Geschäftspapiere u.ä. wird das vierzeilige Logo verwendet, für Presse und Marketing die zweizeilige Variante. That means, the Museum wants to use a given name besides the official name, which is still valid.

It is not WP or commons who does the renaming, commons only follows the official name and that is without any doubt still Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte. Contrary to Christoph Brauns opinion the renaming of cultural institutions in Hamburg works different as could have been noticed by the renaming of Laeiszhalle from Musikhalle and Hamburg Ballett from Hamburger Ballett. And Hamburg has only one Ballett and many museums. --Oursana (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)(changes)Oursana (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:The History of Mars Exploration[edit]

Arbitary category because there is no to differentiation from parent category "Mars exploration" Avron (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted because it is a redundant category to the category "Mars exploration". --High Contrast (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cheese press[edit]

merge with Category:Cheesepress and rename Category:Cheese presses Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cheesepress[edit]

Merge with Category:Cheese press and rename Category:Cheese presses Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Walsall Art Gallery[edit]

Rename to 'Category:The New Art Gallery Walsall'; the full and correct name of the venue, (disclosure: it's where I am currently Wikipedian in Residence). Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed[edit]

Category:Train station platforms at Union Station (Toronto)

Someone usurped all the images that were in this categroy, and placed them in a brand new, narrower, category -- even though about half of them don't fit in the narrower category. They used a bot to perform the usurpation, and the bot failed to leave an open and transparent explanation for the usurpation. The target directory for the usurpation was Category:Train station platforms at Union Station (Toronto). I suggest the following images, for instance, either don't show station platforms at all, or primarly show tracks or trainsheds, and so shouldn't have been usurped: 1, 2, 3. Geo Swan (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Geo, the new category name (Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed) was unfortunately inconsistent with the rest of the category tree and was improperly capitalized. The form of disambiguation was inconsistent with the other Union Station categories, and (except for proper or formal names) the location should always follow the subject (not the other way). Consistency in category naming and categorization is extremely important - when we are inconsistent, we always end up with poorly categorized images and/or duplicate categories. I moved the category name to the same category name we seem to use for every other photo of this sort. Almost all the photos seem to be of the train platforms (which will almost always necessitate also capturing parts of the tracks and the train sheds in the images). You are correct that the three specific images don't seem to fit the train platform category, but then we should create subcats for Category:Rail tracks at Union Station (Toronto) and Category:Train shed at Union Station (Toronto) if there are specific images that someone would use to illustrate either of those subjects. I am not saying that we should not, for example, have a category that allows people to easily find, for example, images of the train shed (quite the opposite actually), but we can't name categories with no regard to how the rest of the category tree is structured and named.

And, by the way, nobody usurped anything. That's not helpful. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Short answer -- I considered starting separate categories for tracks and for trainshed. I have no objection to moving Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed to one of Category:Rail tracks at Union Station (Toronto) or Category:Train shed at Union Station (Toronto), and to creating the other one. Geo Swan (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Longer answer I agree that consistency is important, in general. Unfortunately, in my experience, we are inconsistent about valuing consistency. See Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Boatlifts in Henrichenburg, Germany for an example of inconsistency.

Anyhow I suggest Category:Train station platforms in Canada is not a good example of consistency. We have multiple super categories for train stations in Canada -- maybe too many. We have hundreds of images of train stations in Canada. Well over half of those image include the train station platform. If Category:Train station platforms in Canada was really a valuable category most of those images would already have been included in it. But they weren't.

Category:Train station platforms in Canada contained just over a dozen images, all but two of which were instances of GO Train stations -- that were already included in Category:GO Train Stations. Check those GO stations and you will find they contain other basically similar images that were not included in Category:Train station platforms in Canada. Of the other two, one was an image of an Edmonton LRT station platform -- not all that different from 20 other images of Edmonton LRT station platforms that were not included. Anyhow, on the grounds that I think "train stations" iplies heavy rail, not light rail, I removed it. The other image was a VIA station, already inlcuded in a super category for VIA stations.

WRT train sheds -- they are rare -- at least in North America. Toronto's Union Station has one. Are there any others in Ontario? In Canada? So train sheds are far more noteworthy than train station platforms.

Organizations that run databases should have a single person who is responsible for consistently managing the databases schema. Commons lacks this. So it is at a constant risk of a kind of schema creep. This risk is multiplied by the fact that when most categories are started the person starting them doesn't bother explicitly stating wha should and shouldn't be included. (I am guilty of this as well.)

An anecdote to illustrate my point. I was a member of a small food coop, some decades ago -- in pre-PC days actually. The food coop's inventory was maintained on a rolodex of 3x5 cards. When I first had to pay attention to that rolodex it had a section labelled "cereals" that listed our past purchases of wheat, barley, millet, oats. At some point someone strted a card for oatmeal, and included it in this section. Well, I went away for a while, and when I returned, that coop had started to expensive, organic, crunchy granola, muesli (a kind of uncooked crunchy granola), and even organic, processed corn-flake like boxes. I found they had taken over the "cereals" section -- and a brand new section had been created for "grains and nutes". I see that kind of category creep here all the time.

We currently have:

Do we really need Category:Heritage Railway Stations of Canada and Category:Demolished train stations in Canada‎ and Category:Former train stations in Canada‎?

Categories suck. They had no history of when an element was added, and when it was removed. Administrators routinely delete empty categories -- even though they have way of knowing if the category had always been empty, whether it was emptied by a cluelss newbie or vandal, or was deleted by a knowledgable insider. I think we need a better replacement for categories as an organizing tool. Geo Swan (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

WRT usurpation. You wrote: "And, by the way, nobody usurped anything. That's not helpful.". Over on the wikipedia I have an essay w:User:Geo Swan/on apologies. Are you telling me you think I should apologize fr using the term usurpation? In that essay I suggest practically everyone sucks at apologies. I say I will apologize, but if I don't already recognize what merits an apology I need the person who wants one to spell out why, first, and I have to be convinced one is in order.

Way back in 2005 commons allowed images with non-commercial licenses. I'd uploaded only a few images, maybe one hundred images. But they included a dozen or or two dozen images of Canadian Coast Guard and Canadian Navy vessels that were uploaded using the then perfectly valid non-commercial licenses. In March of 2005 it was announced that new images with non-commercial licenses could no longer be uploaded. And all the legacy images with non-commercial licenses would soon be deleted.

It was a huge disappointment for me. I decided I would spend the next weekend searching for replacement images that were in the public domain. I decided I could search for instances where a USN or USCG individual was assigned to a Canadian ship, or was on a joint mission with US vessels, or visited a Canadian port. Those images were in the public domain.

I wasn't as experience at searching for images, and there were probably a lot few images to find. I spent 14 hours looking for public domain replacements.

So I was realy cross when I noticed someone had come along and removed the valid lisense tag on my new, legitimate public domain images, replacing it with a speedy tag saying the image should be deleted because it lacked a porper license. I looked at the confitribution history of the is guy, and he had done this to something like 100 Canadian images.

I asked this quality contrl volunteer why they removed my valid licenses. He said something like: "I know some Canadian people reacted to the change in licensing by putting bogus valid licenses on images that are copyvios, so I went through all those images and removed the bogus licences. I reminded him of (1) his obligation to use meaningful edit summaries; and (2) the recommendation he leave a heads-up on the talk page of contributors when he nominated their images for deletion.

His response was classic, and it is one I have encountered over and over again, in one form or another since then. His response (paraphrasing from memory):

I could take the steps you recommend, but the time required to do so would erode the efficiency of my quality control efforts.

Well, he may have regarded his quality control efforts as "efficient", but he also had made a lot of mistakes.

It should have taken him less than 30 seconds to check the source pages of the images I uploaded. It should have taken him less than 30 seconds to leave a heads-up on my talk page. The replacement public domain images I found took almost an hour each to find, so his unwillingness to spend that 30 second was highly annoying. He had also removed the valid licenses from some images uploaded by User:CambridgeBayWeather -- claiming they were too professional looking to be the work of an amateur, and they were from a remote location, unlikely to be the home of one of the project's volunteers. Well CambridgeBayWeather does live in Cambridge Bay, so his images too were false positives.

After spending a considerable effort to comply with the (new) policy in my search for those policy compliant replacement images I decided it was absolutely essential that our projects' quality control volunteers -- those who enforce our policies -- should follow our policies to the letter.

What I think this principle means, with regard to Siebot, is that if it doesn't leave meaningful edit summaries it should not be used.

If there is a meaningful explanation, based on a policy based, or a guideline, or a long established central discussion, that is another matter. Good faith contributors make mistakes. I think they should feel entitled to have others who think they made a mistake, to provide some kind of clue as to what they see as a mistake -- even if it only a link in an edit summary.

I don't think I was at fault starting Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed. I had never heard of COM:CDC until you mentioned it. I am not a newbie. I have uploaded close to 10,000 images since 2005. There have been dozens of categories I thought were valid that were deleted due to being empty after someone took all their contents and placed them in some other category, without meaningful explanation.

I tried to figure out how I could figure out who was responsible for emptying the category of the contents I put in it, so I could aske them why they did this. I figured I would have to find the source code for siebot, see if I could read the language it was written in, to see where it said the bot should read the list of actions it should take. I didn't think I could count on finding the source online. I didn't think I could count on being able to understand the source code and figure out where the list of actions was kept. I didn't think I could count on the list of actions being easy to decode, or even that it would be on a server I had access to.

Let me repeat my key points:

I think it is absolutely essential that our projects' quality control volunteers -- those who enforce our policies -- should follow our policies to the letter.
I think Category:Train station platforms in Canada and Category:Train station platforms at Union Station (Toronto) are not a good example of consistency. Category:Train station platforms in Canada is a category that should be deleted as it is (1) barely used; (2) overlaps better, more useful categories.
If Toronto's Union Station has the only trainshed in Canada, or if there are only a very few trainsheds in Canada then there is no consistency problem with having a category for Union Station's trainshed.
As per Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Boatlifts in Henrichenburg, Germany I have never been able to count on consistency.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! :) That's quite the response. To keep this discussion from spiraling into a lengthy novel, I'll respond in brief bullet points. Just because my responses are brief and to the point, it does not mean that I am being dismissive of your comments or intentionally being curt.

I have no problem with you putting all the images in question in Category:Rail tracks at Union Station (Toronto) or Category:Train shed at Union Station (Toronto), as appropriate and Category:Train station platforms in Canada could be deleted for all I care. I am not fussed whether we have a category for train platforms or not. All I care about here is that the categories we have are correctly named.
I do believe train sheds are less common in North America (so is train travel). But historically they did exist in greater number in Canada - off the top of my head, the train sheds in Ottawa were demolished to make way for Rideau Canal beautification, and the Halifax station used to have a lovely one. Perhaps I have not expressed myself well, but I have no issue with a category for Union Station's trainshed. I encourage it. I have a problem with a "grab bag" category name like Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed because it presents so many problems.
Commons is a work in progress. To borrow an en.wp expression, there will always be OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments to be made. Problems elsewhere are never an excuse to throw naming conventions out the window.
As per COM:CAT, categories should be assessed on the basis of their scope, not what happens to be in them at any given moment. The fact that there are other images that are not as well categorized as they should be is not a good reason to establish inconsistent category naming.
Category:Heritage Railway Stations of Canada, Category:Demolished train stations in Canada‎, Category:Former train stations in Canada‎ are each a distinctive category. There is no overlap. The first refers to a specific federal heritage designation (thus the caps). The second refers to stations that are no more. The third refers to stations that have been repurposed for new uses. (BTW, there is a discussion going on the moment whereby "Former [type of building]" categories would be renamed "Repurposed [type of building]" since former can so often be understood to mean destroyed. The discussion has stalled on the meaning of the meaning of the word "demolished"). Arguably, some hatnotes would be of value here though.
Categories *do* suck, but until the Mediawiki software is significantly updated to allow for tags, that's what we are stuck with.
I didn't say you should apologize for using the word "usurped". I said it was inaccurate. Nobody usurped anything. But you certainly have no reason to apologize.
We are all quality control volunteers on Commons.
I'm sorry you had that problem way back when with a person who clearly appears to have been a complete asshole. It is both a blessing and a curse that collaborative projects such as this attract all types.
We should all be following our policies and guidelines and practices. But there is often not going to be agreement about what it means to have followed a policy to the letter in any given circumstances. And there is so much clean-up being undertaken at any given point here on Commons, that is not to be unexpected that people are going to be doing what they think is routine clean-up that turns out to raise concerns. The more helpful approach is to assume good faith and engage in discussion (and then raise bloody hell if the other person/people fail to treat you with respect). And following things to the letter works both ways. Category naming consistency is very important, negative past experiences and random examples of bad categorization notwithstanding.
I don't find your criticism of Category:Train station platforms in Canada all that convincing. But to me, the more important issue is working within the existing category naming scheme. If the scheme sucks, work to change it (and/or just avaoid the problematic subcategories). This particular issue (platforms, train sheds, etc.) strikes me as one that might be requiring some consideration and discussion at a more general level. I used to be completely frustrated by the monuments and memorials categories - I was just trying to sort out the images on a Toronto (and to a lesser extent, Canada) basis, but jesus fucking christ the categories were a mess. I got involved in a discussion related to the top categories Category:Memorials and Category:Monuments, both longstanding categories, and it quickly became apparent that notwithstanding that there were 1000s of monument and memorial subcategories on the Commons, there was no clear consensus on what constituted a monument versus a memorial and which one (if either) was a subcategory of the other. Things were changed, and it now makes sense.
I went on way longer than intended. Sorry. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time for a detailed reply. It seems we are in complete agreement.

Thanks for the information about other Canadian train sheds. I went looking in for some among our existing pictures, thinking maybe Winnipeg or Thunder Bay might have had one. Some of those European train sheds were beautiful, and even the ugly ones are interesting.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Varengeville by Claude Monet[edit]

Change to 'Varengeville-sur-Mer by Claude Monet', to avoid confusion with Varangéville Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Former counties of Scotland[edit]

The counties of Scotland are only "former" in the sense that they are no longer the current legal administrative divisions of Scotland. However, they still have major cultural significance which makes the name "former" something of a misnomer. En.wiki uses w:Shires of Scotland. "Counties of Scotland" may be somewhat ambiguous because it could be confused for the current political subdivions of Scotland, the w:Council Areas of Scotland. –⁠moogsi (blah) 21:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Historic counties of Scotland ? --Foroa (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I should add that this is due to a concern raised at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Scotire, where also was suggested Category:Traditional counties of Scotland. Suddenly no-one has an opinion any more :) –⁠moogsi (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We've just had a weekend, where not everyone is around, and I for one am in the middle of a huge family history project which is taking pretty much all my time to finish. I have an opinion, and when I have a little more spare time, I'll let everyone have the benefit of it. And Scotire (talk · contribs) has just commented on the category's talk page, so I've directed him here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. And I apologize: that comment was not intended as criticism of anyone in particular :) –⁠moogsi (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Under the Act the counties were disestablished (their status was altered), but that did not mean that they were "former", it meant that their roles in administration were altered, and that their place-name remained the same, their actual placenames were not "disestablished " dis · es · tab · lish (ds-stblsh) tr.v. dis · es · tab · lished, dis · es · tab · lish · ing, dis · es · tab · lish · es 1. To "alter the status" of (something established by authority or general acceptance). These counties' place-names still exist within the District Council Administration areas and are not "former". "Traditional counties" would be a correct description, if any description is required at all. Scotire (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I take Scotire's point that they are not really "Former", in the sense that they still exist in some form. However, I don't think "Traditional" is the correct term since they were only formalised as local government areas in 1889, having been created from the various commission areas. I'm taking this from the Wikipedia article w:Shires of Scotland, so forgive my precis, but I think the latter would most closely match en.wp's article, and clarify exactly the scope of our category. For the time being, I leave it open as to what I think these categories should contain, because I think the name seems to be most divisive issue. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You still cannot separate "Administrative" with "Traditional". Counties became a "basis of local government", alongside burghs, when 34 county councils were created in Scotland by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889, councils being the operative word not counties. The counties became the "basis of local government" which is entirely different to "being created counties". We are talking about Counties not their administration. Scottish shires each sent Commissioners (MPs) to the Scottish Parliament. They trace their origins to the mormaerdoms, stewartries and sheriffdoms of the High Middle Ages. The administrative counties resembled the “traditional shires / counties” of Scotland, but not exactly.

So what would be wrong with "Shires of Scotland" as a category? That's what I'm proposing. If you would deal with that instead of veering off into a detailed history lesson, this discussion might be closed, remembering that we are dealing with categorising images, not politics. It would also help if you would thread and indent the discussion properly. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Shires of Scotland would be most suitable, thank you. People seem to confuse Council areas (which change according to populations and revenues), with the placenames within those councils, i.e. Shires. Scotire (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Festes Majors[edit]

I created by mistake without knowing there is another similar category:Town festivals in Catalonia Kippelboy (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Stucco artists[edit]

Category is quite hard to find. Template:Occupation/list suggests "plasterer", why not rename the category to "plasteres" as well? --Flominator (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that plasterer is a tradesman making general plasterwork, not sure we can mix it up with "artistic" plasterwork. --Foroa (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Like Foroa says, it's like the old "What do you do?" "I'm a painter" "Pictures or houses?". Except in this case, "plasterer" only means a tradesperson who will come to your house and plaster a wall, not an artist –⁠moogsi (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Should we then maybe change Template:Occupation/list? --Flominator (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Tulips miscellaneous group[edit]

This grab-bag grouping under a "miscellaneous" title is inconsistent with the approach on Commons to categorization and simply renders it more difficult to find the content (there are times when a miscellany category makes sense, but this is not it). I'm guessing that the intent was a good faith intention to clean up the main tulipa category, but grouping subcats that have very little to do with one another in a "misc" category is not a great way to do it. I would have though the better way to do this would be a category along the lines of "Tulipa by species/type/genus..." (whatever the right jargon is), so as to clearly delineate the subcats pertaining to types of tulips from those pertaining to other subjects. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that the similar categories have also been created for other types of flowers (e.g. Category:Lilies miscellaneous group). I will tag those as well, and direct people to this discussion so we have more input. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And Category:Miscellaneous Lilium to make it simpler. Miscellaneous is a wonderful word for categories. --Foroa (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind that category so much (althought it should be Category:Miscellaneous lilium), although I'd prefer that such images remain in the main category until such time as a subcat is created for that particular species/type/cultivar/etc. (again, I am demonstrating my complete lack of knowledge of flowers by not knowing the right word to use here). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears to only be two categories - for lilies and tulips. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And don't forget Category:Tulipa Miscellaneous Group using uppercase to make confusion complete. --Foroa (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice catch. I hadn't noticed that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The reasons for my doing:

We have in commons a very valuable botanical and zoological taxonomic system.

There are many new non-taxonomic categories for user with other interests (e.g. themes collected in "Tulips miscellaneous group").

There is the scientific name Tulipa, used for the botanical part.

There is the no-scientific name "tulips", used for the non-botanical part. Orchi (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I wish you would not use the term "group" for these informal collections of categories. The word "group" is used as a formal name for groups of cultivars, as recommended by International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. Uleli (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Orchi that the vernacular name "tulips" should not been used.

I agree with Uleli that "group" is not suitable. For me it would suggest that this category contains e.g. a group of "Tulipa hybrids" ot "Tulipa cultivars".

Why would we, e.g., not rename this category "Tulipa miscellaneous" or only "Miscellaneous"? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest to move Category:Tulips miscellaneous group to Category:Categories related to Tulipa or Category:Categories related to Tulipa taxon: it might be a better name and used in a systematic way for isolation between taxonomy and common names. . --Foroa (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for interest and proposals. I agree with with user:Uleli entirely. Thanks to user:Foroa's proposals.What do you think about a short and universal way: e.g. „Category:Tulipa non-taxon“ or „Category:Lilium no taxon“. Orchi (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I remain surprised how much you Taxonomy/TOL people are really immersed in your Taxon world (to the extent that I called one of the colleagues a taxomaniac). So what you are proposing, "no taxon" is just a statement meaning "all the rest that is not from our Taxonomy world, so stay out, I don't care". I guess that 95 % of the Commons contributors shy away from the complex Taxonomy world with their Latin abracadabra, so they will happily dump their stuff in miscellaneous categories or non taxon categories as this is the easiest passe-partout. So a number of comments on the proposed Category:Categories related to Tulipa taxon :

It describes exactly what we intent, Tulip non-taxon could mean anything
By its name, it is a meta category, so no images should be dropped in it, only categories, decreasing maintenance work
you all try to use the shortest possible name, but this is nor really relevant here as it is only manipulated to structure categories, not images.

Anyway, without clear names and by using category names like miscellaneous, various, other, ... you are just attracting lazy categorisation and subsequent maintenance work. And frankly, I fail to understand why I should not drop any special Lilium image into Category:Miscellaneous Lilium; I guess that a substantial part of the Lilium images would qualify for this category.

We better decide carefully as this type of Taxonomy/common name bridge category will probably propagate very quickly to other taxon. --Foroa (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lilies miscellaneous group[edit]

Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/05/Category:Tulips miscellaneous group Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I wish you would not use the term "group" for these informal collections of categories. The word "group" is used as a formal name for groups of cultivars, as recommended by International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. Uleli (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The vernacular name "lilies" should not been used. I agree with Uleli that "group" is not suitable, because it would indeed suggest that this category contains e.g. a group of "Lilium hybrids" or "Lilium cultivars". Why would we, e.g., not rename this category "Lilium miscellaneous" or only "Miscellaneous"?--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of Franciscus, Pope - bad[edit]

This curious category was created to house the abundance of compositions of Pope Francis' arms, but most of those have been deleted by now. I have removed the last file from this category, because it now serves as the first version of his coat of arms. Category:Coats of arms of Franciscus, Pope is quite orderly now, so I don't think this still serves a purpose. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Coats of arms of Franciscus, Pope category has Category:1 eight rays in heraldry category in this time. But in File:Coat of Arms of Pope Francis (first version).svg file "1 eight ray" doesn't exist. Skim (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't that categorisation be moved to the files in question, in that case? It seems quite excessive to keep a category for a single file, with a name that wouldn't fit. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ship propellers[edit]

Shouldn't the name of this category be Ships' propellers? Geo Swan (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It depends on whether you think the word ship is being used attributively or not. I think it is; "ship propellers" sounds fine to me –⁠moogsi (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As I noted in Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/11/Category:Ship's bells -- still unclosed, although I initiated it 40 months ago -- I am not an English major. In that discussion I quoted Strunk and White's, Elements of Style.

Frankly I don't understand w:Noun adjunct, but I note it says:

Noun adjuncts were traditionally mostly singular (e.g. "trouser press") except when there were lexical restrictions (e.g. "arms race"), but there is a recent trend towards more use of plural ones, especially in UK English. Many of these can also be and/or were originally interpreted and spelled as plural possessives (e.g. "chemicals' agency", "writers' conference", "Rangers' hockey game"), but they are now often written without the apostrophe, although this is criticised by some authorities.

I think the consensus at Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/11/Category:Ship's bells was for "ships'", and I would encourage the closing admin to close that discussion as well.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I should have read that article before linking it. The section you quote isn't referenced (at least, the reference given doesn't say anything to that effect). Sorry about that. All I mean is, imagine the word "ship" is being used as an adjective. For instance, there is no adjective in English meaning "of or relating to a ship or ships" (except maybe "nautical", but that is a little broader referring to seafaring in general). It's like "ship diagrams" or "shipyards" - you aren't talking about a specific ship or number of ships, you are using the noun "ship" as an attribute of the other noun. Some more examples of noun adjuncts would be:

Ships' propellers does sound OK in this instance - it sounds like a more likely possessive phrase on its own (more than "apples' cores", for example). But I favour Category:Ship propellers, because using "ship" attributively means you are definitely talking about no ship in particular (or all ships everywhere ever, depending on how you analyze it), whereas using "ships'" possessively suggests you might be talking about a specific group of ships, e.g. "the fleet moved forward by the ships' propellers" is fine, you're talking about those ships in the fleet. So "ships' propellers" for me leaves open the question "which ships?", because you would only need to say "ships'" if you wanted to specify a group. Of course, we do obviously mean "all ships ever" in naming the category, but it still sounds more awkward and imprecise to me. Neither of them is "wrong" in itself –⁠moogsi (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Arcades in the United States[edit]

Is there another word for arcades that are places that house games etc - as in this photo File:Wonderland Arcade, 1200 Grand Ave. Kansas City, Missouri - NARA - 283779.jpg?? Mjrmtg (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

They are usually called amusement arcades (or at least they are here in England). We already have Category:Amusement arcades in the United States. --Zundark (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Mjrmtg (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved –⁠moogsi (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Bundi Jhalawar district[edit]

There is no such district named Bundi Jhalawar. Nor do en:Bundi district or en:Jhalawar district pages talk of any such district in the past. Category is empty at present. Rahul Bott (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted –⁠moogsi (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Men with glasses[edit]

For Discussion - I don't believe any named men should be under this category, only photos. For example Category:Jan Peter Balkenende, in the category are photos, signatures and audio clips. In the photos he has glasses, his signature has nothing to do with him and glasses, nor does an audio clip. What do others feel about subcategories being under this category? or, just the photos? Mjrmtg (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree, and anyway, people don't always wear them all their life or all the time. --Foroa (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone User:Pigsonthewing isn't happy with the decision to only categorize photos with Category:Men with glasses, he keeps reverting when I try to add Category:Men with glasses of photos of him with glasses, like File:Wiki Academy Kosovo 2013 Award ceremony 04.jpg, File:QSMM GLAM 3177.JPG, File:Herbert Backstage Pass cmglee 65.jpg. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not how categories work - and there's no need to flood watchlists. Andy Mabbett (me) *is* a "man with glasses". Not to mention that you're adding individual images of me - unusually - not wearing my glasses; and audio clips, to the category. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the photos of you and the audio clips from the category. I mass added everything tried to remove the ones without glasses. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No; you didn't. You removed some of them. Your edits are being disruptive. Stop it (but revert as requested on your talk page). Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, as I said, I missed removing Category:Men with glasses from some of your photos that do not have glasses in them. Your adding Category:Men with glasses to Category:Andy Mabbett is being disruptive. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like there are two different concepts about the logic of categories. While some categories are thought to describe constants (i.e. attributes which won't change, like place of birth) other categories are thought to describe variables (i.e. attributes which can change, like men with glasses). Although I'd appreciate a more consistent approach on categorisation, current implementation shows that this is not the case at all. If you look at categories with Category:Politicians with moustaches you'll most likely find pictures which don't show politicians with moustaches. I think the current approach tries to represent characteristics rather than what you actually see on an image. Still this might be a valid reason to establish a set of categories identifying what you actually see (e.g. Images of people wearing glasses). Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons is a media server, and obviously, as can be seen in the subcategories, this category is reserved for portrait photos of men wearing glasses. Indeed, in Category:Men with sunglasses, the concept seems understood. Three quarters of the male population are wearing glasses from time to time, so categories of the people that wear glasses (from time to time) don't help for people that search for pictures of people wearing glasses. If people don't understand this simple concept, we'll have to rename the category indeed. --Foroa (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't wear glasses "from time to time". Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Come on, there are only 60 % of the images in Category:Andy Mabbett and virtually none of the 1100 images its subcategories that are relevant for this category. --Foroa (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts for a compromise creation of Category:Andy Mabbett with glasses populated only with images in which he is wearing glasses that is a subcategory of Category:Andy Mabbett and Category:Men with glasses.--KTo288 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please propose this, first, as a general policy for Commons categories. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

In this category, "with" means that a man actually is with the glasses in the specific visual work, not that he merely owns glasses or occasionally wears them. If a man is always seen with glasses in all visual media, then maybe that man's name category should be in Category:Men with glasses for efficiency. But, if it's likely that there will be at least some publicly-accessable media of the man without glasses, then the two categories should be applied to each photo separately. If one searches all media in Category:Men with glasses and all of its subcategories, there should be no image of a man without glasses also in the image. An example of where the line is, in my opinion: Until 10 minutes ago, I would have said that Category:Harry Caray should be in Category:Men with glasses. Harry Caray was a sports announcer in the U.S., and eyeglasses were a prominent part of his identity. (You can do a Google Image Search for "Harry Caray" and you'll see.) I assumed that he had worn eyeglasses since an early age, and that I would never see a picture without them. But I did the image search and actually found one legitimate image of him without glasses: Here's Haray Caray without glasses, presumably in the 1940s at 1340 WCLS (now WJOL) in Joliet, Illinois. Whether he was required to take his glasses off for a professional photo at the time, or he just took them off normally at the time, I don't know. But, because of this photo, Category:Harry Caray shouldn't be in Category:Men with glasses, since there is at least one example of how Harry Caray might end up with a legitimate image without glasses on Commons. --Closeapple (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think your assertions have no substance. Also, I don't wear glasses "occasionally". Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you specifically (or at all, to be honest); I was talking about what people expect to see when they encounter "with" on Commons. "Men and glasses" would be a awkward. "Men wearing glasses" would make sense, but then you end up with people being pedantic about people holding glasses in their hands instead of on their head for a moment. (No need to inform me whether a specific person holds glasses in his or her hands "for a moment".) I do understand that it gets complicated when we're dealing with a category that has subcategories whose direct subjects are not the parent category's direct subject. Category:Theodore Roosevelt is a subcategory of Category:Politicians with moustaches, and Category:Theodore Roosevelt's taxidermy is a subcategory of Category:Theodore Roosevelt, yet the things in Category:Theodore Roosevelt's taxidermy do not have moustaches. (I think that could be solved with a couple of technical changes or tags, but it would get hairy and take a lot of time.) --Closeapple (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Single men[edit]

What is the purpose of this category? At any time, they can get married and then they will no longer be single. We're supposed to keep track of who is married and who isn't? Seems a little too much. Mjrmtg (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete All people are single in the beginning and end of their lives. This is not the role of a media server to maintain those things. --Foroa (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete Not useful for finding anything, too difficult to maintain –⁠moogsi (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Agárdy Gábor[edit]

Duplicate of Category:Gábor Agárdy Louperivois Ψ @ 14:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirected –⁠moogsi (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Toyota LiteAce[edit]

Information on performance and construction is either lacking or not accessible 99.186.22.192 14:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This kind of information can be found at Wikipedia w:Toyota LiteAce. Commons is not an encyclopedia –⁠moogsi (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Ibn al-Bawwab[edit]

Duplicate of Category:Al-Bawwâb Louperivois Ψ @ 15:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirected –⁠moogsi (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Leonardo Alenza[edit]

Duplicate of Category:Leonardo Alenza Y Nieto Louperivois Ψ @ 16:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirected –⁠moogsi (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mitch Allen[edit]

Duplicate of Category:Mitch Allan Louperivois Ψ @ 17:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a typo; redirect to correct spelling. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirected –⁠moogsi (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Multiverse (science fiction)[edit]

unnecessary layer of categorization. image can go in other categories, and is not truly a SF related image Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I created this category because category:Multiverse was categorised in category:Cosmology, which is for me related to science and not to science-fiction or fantasy. But as there is only a small amount of media in both categories, I agree to transfere the only picture from Category:Multiverse (science fiction) to category:Multiverse.

And, yes, the picture is related to SF. It is as neutral as possible to avoid infringement of intellectual property (the author died only a few years ago), but it is related to a ficitonal work.

Cdang (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm, after a good night of sleep, I get back to what I wrote: when science and fiction meet, I think it is better to separate them, so one can make the difference between what is considered as a serious hypothesis, and what is just a work of imagination.

Cdang (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Tragelaphus spekeii in Prague Zoo[edit]

Tragelaphus spekii in Prague Zoo? (not spekEii) --Хомелка (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Moved –⁠moogsi (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Christian aediculae[edit]

Category:Wayside shrines, Category:Oratories, Category:Wayside chapels, Category:Christian aediculae are overlapping categories, but the denominations are not univoque. And Category:Devotion in Italy by city seems to concern mainly Category:Christian aediculae. I think the category-tree needs improvement. Suggestions for improvements? --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Battled and embattled ordinaries[edit]

Proposed move to Category:Embattled ordinaries - current name is tautological Wilhelm meis (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Support move to Category:Embattled ordinaries, and a redirect at Category:Battled ordinaries –⁠moogsi (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Support - As the creator of this category but no expert in English heraldry, I agree with the proposed renaming. Bruno (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Claude Audran II[edit]

Duplicate of Category:Claude II Audran Louperivois Ψ @ 11:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Hillsboro baseball stadium[edit]

Need to re-name it to match the now official name. New name should be Hillsboro Ballpark M.O. Stevens 18:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

See the City's official page on the stadium for verification. M.O. Stevens 18:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Abdul Kalam in 2011[edit]

This category has been superseded by Category:A. P. J. Abdul Kalam in 2011 and should either be deleted or redirected to the new category. Rahul Bott (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted: Non-admin closure. Already speedied by User:Sven Manguard with the rationale "empty". Rahul Bott (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:UK National Cycle Network National Route 5[edit]

This category is essentially a duplicate of Category:National Cycle Network route 5 (which it is in fact a subcategory of). It only had one file in it, File:Cycle track by petemh.jpg, which has been moved to the main NCR5 category. I'd suggest deleting this category. -- Schnee (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I created this category 1/2 year before Category:National Cycle Network route 5 was created. I'm ok with deleting "my" category. The new one has a more handy name. I probably wanted the category to include "UK" because many countries have national cycle networks. Nillerdk (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Emmelie de Forest bored[edit]

POV title. We cant have "X smiling", "Y crying", "P in red gown with chin on hand and winking towards the audience" as category names. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I created the category because I got many photos of her looking really bored. I understand that this kind of cattegory is unusual, but it is a hidden category. --/abbedabb ^talk 08:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Support this nomination. Very subjective title, please delete. - FakirNL (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sreesanth[edit]

This category should be moved to Category:S. Sreesanth which the publicly known full name of the person with the initials/surname. Rahul Bott (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Grushauka (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Hrušaǔka (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Akademiya Nauk (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Akademija navuk (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Borisovski Trakt (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Barysaŭski trakt (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Institut Kultury (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Instytut kuĺtury (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mihalova (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Michalova (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Moskovskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Maskoŭskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Oktyabrskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kastryčnickaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Park Cheluskintsev (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Park Čaliuskincaŭ (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ploschad Pobedy (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Plošča Pieramohi (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ploschad Yakuba Kolasa (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Plošča Jakuba Kolasa (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ploshad Lenina (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Plošča Lienina Kolasa (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Uruch'e (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Uručča (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Vostok (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Uschod (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Avtozavodskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Aŭtazavodskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Frunzenskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Frunzienskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kamennaya Gorka (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kamiennaja Horka (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kuncevshina (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kuncaŭščyna (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kupalovskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kupalaŭskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mogilyovskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Mahilioŭskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Molodezhnaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Maladziožnaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Nemiga (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Niamiha (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Partizanskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Partyzanskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pervomayskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Pieršamajskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Proletarskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Pralietarskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pushkinskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Puškinskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sportivnaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Spartyŭnaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Traktorny Zavod (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Traktarny zavod (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Audio files of 1848[edit]

Empty category Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Audio files of the 1840s[edit]

Contains only an empty category, also nominated Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Janneken Pis[edit]

Empty category (due to COM:FOP#Belgium). 84.61.160.72 17:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep No reason for deletion: it will come back again and again. And the environment, plaques and de minimis pictures will ultimately arrive. --Foroa (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Could it be usefull to create a Category:subject to COM:FOP#Belgium) and to put redirects towards such a category from this and similar categories? --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Good idea about the category, but no redirects as image will come and go anyway, some will stay in the long run. --Foroa (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ethnographic topless adolescent girls[edit]

Is this even legal? And no, this is not about appropriateness, but simple law. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Why would it be illegal ? As the title says, these files are ethnographic pictures showing populations and tribes where toplessness (and nudity for some of them) are not seen as an offense or a problem. How could you/we tell them that there's something illegal in that ? It's somehow a sort of despise to judge them (and their nudity) on the basis of occidental visions and laws. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yet again this is not about morals, but about the legal system. Commons files are hosted in the US, so US law applies (not "tribal" law). If it is illegal to show naked minors (in the US sense, below 18) on US websites, then it applies to Commons as well, whatever the context. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It is ambiguous whether nude photos of minors are illegal in themselvs, but "sensuous" photos of minors are illegal, and applies to many of the photos in the following category: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Orientalist_nude_photographs_by_Lehnert_%26_Landrock And yes, I am aware that all those Berber girls would now be older than my great grandmother. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Architectural wiring diagrams[edit]

Is it a good category?, for plans like some from Category:Electrical_installations and thelike like File:Single-phase for 2-room apartments.JPG and File:Ex-wiring-plan.svg Also add to Specific diagram types. See also Category talk:Architectural wiring diagrams Sunspeanzler (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Uthlande (ship, 2011)[edit]

This ship was completed and commissioned in 2010, see [1], but apparently the category was mistakenly created for 2011. There's already an aptly named Category:Uthlande (ship, 2010) so we should delete the erroneous 2011 category. De728631 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ralf Roletschek may have mixed this up with Uthlande's sister ship Schleswig-Holstein that was in fact built in Rostock in 2011. De728631 (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there is need to discuss about this category move. De728631, thanks for your tireless work in categorizing ships! Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually "Category:Uthlande (ship, 2010)" did already exist when the other one was created a month ago. The correct category was created by Stunteltje in August 2011‎. De728631 (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:NE 81 of the neg[edit]

Misleading and unnecessary redirect. Railcar T4 of neg is an Austrian type ÖBB 5047, while NE 81 is an unrelated German type of vehicle. De728631 (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am confused. Does the neg even have NE 81 stock? I suggest just removing this category. I have no clue, why I originally created it. --Sebari (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

They never had an NE 81 in stock. There used to be one on the Niebüll-Tønder line but that was operated and owned by NOB. De728631 (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pierre Charles Baquoy[edit]

Duplicate of Category:Pierre-Charles Baquoy Louperivois Ψ @ 21:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Technically, Category:Pierre-Charles Baquoy is the duplicate as it was created later than this page. Suggestion: Merge, if indeed the two pages refer to the same engraver, using the correct name, which-ever it is. Wikiborg4711 (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Marco Antonio Bassetti[edit]

Duplicate of Category:Marcantonio Bassetti Louperivois Ψ @ 23:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Heads above water[edit]

This category is a sub category of Category:People in contact with water yet there are photos of animals here, this category should be renamed or the parent category should be changed. Mjrmtg (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel[edit]

This category should be moved to Category:Vallabhbhai Patel as the latter name is without any honorifics and the subject is equally well known and uniquely identified by the shorter name too. Rahul Bott (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Birmingham International Airport[edit]

Should be renamed, as airport has been renamed to "Birmingham Airport" (sub category should also be renamed) Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Women's erotica[edit]

Imho this category makes no sense and should be deleted Oursana (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

Category:Flight North Sea coast (Germany?)[edit]

IMO Umbenennung zu Category:Flight North Sea coast (Germany) wäre sinnvoll (ohne das "?"). Einwende? Flor!an (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ja, habe ich. Da der liebe RaBoe auf seinen Bildern nicht vermerkt hat, was er da fotografiert hat, ist es ohne Weiteres möglich, dass da auch Aufnahmen von z.B. Holland drauf sind. Das ist der Grund für dieses "?" Gruß --El. (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

=> Category:Flight North Sea coast (Germany or Netherlands) stattdessen? --Geitost ^diskusjon 12:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Man müsste eben mehr über die einzelnen Aufnahmen wissen. Evtl. sind ja auch welche von Dänemark dabei. --El. (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:National costumes of natives in western portrait paintings[edit]

Nominating this category for deletion. Terminology is extremely vague "natives" of where? There's already Category:Clothing of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Category:Dress of Indigenous Peoples. Uyvsdi (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

it is in particular for "portrait paintings" - oil on canvas, not photo or something else depiction of clothing without people. Ethnographic subgenre of European portraiture. --Shakko (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There isn't anything about "oil" in the category name. "Natives" is undefined and definitely does not reflect a global perspective. A category for Category:Portrait paintings of Native Americans and Category:Portrait paintings of Maori. These are precise and neutral descriptions for categories. Also, in the United States, "costume" is an extremely offensive term when describing Native American traditional clothing. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Delete: Both the words "costume" and "natives" are inherently racist and offensive in this context. Montanabw (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Rename Category:Clothing of indigenous peoples in Western depictions. I really don't understand why people here are so keen to just delete large and well-established categories that are just not very well named. This distinguishes it from photos, which is very useful, but "portrait paintings" is too specific. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not particularly large nor well-established and the premise is odd, to say the least. Why is it important that these are Western portraits, since many Chinese artists paint highly naturalistic portraits of people wearing traditional clothing? Also any portrait of any indigenous person that isn't nude will feature their clothing, so the emphasis should probably be on the person not the clothes, since the images can also be categorized in the appropriate subcats of Category:Images of clothing or Category:Clothing by nationality, such as Category:Inuit clothing, Category:Native American clothing, etc. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

There's also the poorly named Category:Dress of Indigenous Peoples, which can be used as a category as well. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

One problem, Johnbod, is that, for some reason I have yet to fathom, people seem to treat Native Americans/First Nations people as if their cultures don't exist any more, like Vikings or something. Or, in some cases, the opposite, as if they exist but are some sort of primitive, paleolithic people instead of live human beings in the 20th century world trying to also honor their traditional culture. People who are completely PC in every respect otherwise seem to not "get it" about Native Americans. Not saying this is true of you, but it's a thing I've run across a lot, especially around people from the eastern United States and sometimes Europe. Don't know why, but there you have it. Montanabw (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

reminds me of Bob Dylan who'd sing about any, and every, injustice in the world except for one. I quite like his music. I agree with the deletion. I agree with dispersing the material into the other existing categories, same as every other people and culture. 'Clothing of indigenous peoples in Western depictions' is far too abstract and wordy. Penyulap ☏ 21:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

my main theme in wiki is the portrait genre. What I thought, creating this cat - to collect en:portrait paintings (not images of clothing - example, not ethnographic scientific drawings - example), once again - portraits created in Western European tradition of realistic art (chiaroscuro, perspective, visual dimension) depicting concrete, specific sitters (not generalized abstract foregners) with features of individuality, personality (see once again definition of portrait genre). The sitters from nations who where considered in Europe before 20th century as natives, aboriginal, indigenous, outdated (in contrast to China, India, Iran etc with its ancient orientalistic civilizations who were more or less acknowledged). Something to be main category for Category:Portrait paintings of Native Americans and Category:Portrait paintings of Maori (thanks for it). Reference: portrait painting - always oil, tempera and some quite new materials like acrylic (not in use in PD-art); portrait drawing - pen, charcoal, sanguine, water-colour. So, as I am not native English speaker (e.g. the rasism of word "costume" is absolutely obscure for me) please rename it with right and courteous words, but only keeping the category for "portrait paintings", not simply "images". Something like category:Portrait paintings of indigenous peoples in national clothing. --Shakko (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

as an example the difference with people in Indian dress:

Category:National costume of India in western portrait paintings
National costume of India in Indian portrait painting
Category:Clothing of India in art - it is western depiction of Indian clothing but not the portrait - ethnographic scientific drawing)
Category:Clothing of India in art - local Indian painter. Not Western art

--Shakko (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mausoleum (Mauer cemetery)[edit]

Category is singular and contained a lot of different objects; the cemetery parent category is almost empty without the images of mausoleums, not used any more (one of the mausoleums was extracted to a separate category); Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Portraits with native[edit]

incorrect grammar, vague. Propose renaming to Category:Portrait paintings of indigenous peoples Uyvsdi (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the current title isn't clear, but from the content it seems that this category was meant for portraits of Western persons that also show native persons (from Africa, Asia or the Americas). It is not for portraits of those persons. Category:Portraits with natives would be correct, in principle, but it should somehow be made clear that natives of France or Germany are not meant. Note that one parent category is Category:Portrait paintings by companion. --rimshot^talk 13:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Components of the International Space Station made and assembled in Turin by Alenia[edit]

Relevance? FAEP (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Fruit as aliments[edit]

This request for discussion applies to all subsidiary categories (e.g. "Category:Apples as aliments"). It may just be my particular variant of English (Eastern/Southern/Appalachian American English), but "aliment" is a very uncommon choice of words for a very basic concept. The aliment concept doesn't even have it's own wikipedia article under that meaning (being instead a redirect to "Nutrition"). The question is why, if it is such an uncommon term for a common category, is it being used, especially in a globalized setting where many users' English vocabularies are going to be limited? It seems "Fruit as food" or "Fruit as foodstuffs" would be much more common, but there isn't so much as even a redirect from these. It seems that there was a renaming of these by bot some time ago without discussion, so there is no record to go on for its naming. Does anyone know anything about this? And is there support for a more plain-english term for it, such as the aformentioned "fruit as food", "apples as food", etc.? --Morgan Riley (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an odd choice of a low-frequency word, which could be replaced by "as food". "As aliments" only seems to be applied to fruit and its subcats, and to water (Category:Water as aliment, i.e. drinking water). Would suggest:

as aliment/s → as food
Category:Water as aliment merge → Category:Drinking water (its parent category)

Unless anyone knows better about the Food category tree –⁠moogsi (blah) 20:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I always found it a strange naming indeed, but "Fruit as food" is not correct in the sense that all fruit is food. Maybe we could align with Category:Food by main ingredient and use "Fruit-based food", "Apple-based food", ... --Foroa (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose STRONGLY -- respectfully, "-based" & "-as main ingredient" are both DEEPLY problematic wordings for handling food-topics. how do we determine a "main/base" ingredient? what about recipes in which the ingredient is used but not as "main/base"? going down this path will cause a great deal of future pain & grief (as a main ingredient!) not to meantion a great deal of extra sorting-work. i dont care if "aliment(s)" is the term we choose or not, & yes it's probably more familliar in european & international english, than in regional dialects in the usa. but clearly we do need to agree on some useage, & "main/primary/based" JUST DOESN'T WORK for prepared foods & recipes. Lx 121 (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's complete nonsense, the main ingredient of a food is one is contains most of (aside from very basic ingredients like eggs, water, flour, sugar, etc.) Bear in mind also that foods can have more than one main ingredient, and exist in more than one of these categories. Maybe that whole tree needs a rethink, but you're a bit late to strongly oppose this tree itself... it already exists at Category:Food by main ingredient. The proposal is to align these categories with it to remove "aliment" which is not a high-frequency word in English –⁠moogsi (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

While I can follow the logic for the main ingredient (depending on what you understand by "main"), there is nothings wrong with fruit-based, apple-based, ... food. --Foroa (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: that sounds sensible –⁠moogsi (blah) 11:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Westover AFB in the 1940s[edit]

Empty category. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Westover AFB in the 1950s[edit]

Empty category, overspecification of category. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Westover AFB in the 1960s[edit]

Empty category, overspecification of other categories. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Westover AFB in the 1970s[edit]

Empty category, overspecification of other categories. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters[edit]

Please move this category to Category:DTM.

Reason: Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters is not suitable anymore as the generic term for this category. After 2005 the name "Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters" is not used in any official regularity and announcements of the DMSB or ITR^[2][3]. Since 2005 it's used like a trademark, and not like an abbreviation. And the new category is also useable for DTM, Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft and Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters. Regards --Pitlane02 _talk 10:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Commons don't use acronyms as they are very country and culture specific. See de:DTM (Begriffsklärung) en:DTM ... --Foroa (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Normally also my opinion, but here it's wrong, because today it's not an abbreviation any more, it's used today like a trademark, and this new "trademark" is also usable and understandable. Please read the actual and the elder 2006 sporting regalities of the DMSB/ITR. You can't find nowhere in this official documents the term "Tourenwagen Master". Background is, today NO touring cars are running in this series, the cars are prototype cars and the silhouettes are like coupes! Perhaps you are able to read also the german article (IMPORTANT: de:DTM!!!) for more background informations (also with sources). Regards --Pitlane02 _talk 21:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can read it and I noticed the mix-up. If you want to use DTM, then it needs to be disambiguated. --Foroa (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Pitlane02 described why the category should be moved to DTM. He is absolutly right: It is not an abbreviation anymore. --Gamma127 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:PD Cartoon - Popeye[edit]

This is, in my opinion, an undisguised magnet for copyvios. "Popeye the Sailor" and related characters are copyrighted and trademarked, their ownership lying with King Features Syndicate. SethAllen623 (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep Useful categories shouldn't get deleted just because people can upload copyvios into them. Trademarks are irrelevant to Commons. The basic Olive Oyl was a character in Thimble Theatre prior to 1923, and thus is out of copyright. As we've established with Bugs Bunny, there's valuable parts of a PD cartoon that's not derivative of the underlying characters, like title shots.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that trademarks are irrelevant to Commons, and that the site has never cared about them. I also agree that the character of Olive Oyl is out of copyright for being a character in Thimble Theatre prior to 1923, but of course, Popeye, Bluto, Wimpy, and the others can definitely be treated as copyrighted. I see your point, but I was only nominating this category for discussion, not deletion. BUT -- even when those other characters go into the public domain as Olive Oyl has, that will not prevent KFS from protecting later work featuring the characters, or non-trivial changes to the original characters (i.e. redesigned versions). --Seth Allen (discussion/contributions, Thursday, April 11, 2013, 20:06 U.T.C.

P.S. This category will definitely need to be filled with more law-respecting files in order for this discussion to be advanced.

This is not a DR. If you want those files deleted, you'll need to file a DR on them. BUT -- there are new, copyrighted, versions of the Mona Lisa. That does not mean anything about the Mona Lisa category, just that we can't upload anything we want without thinking about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Not only are there PD media related to Popeye (which will increase in the not-too-distant future), I quite like copyvio-magnets. They make copyvios easier to find, as people will upload them whether the category is there or not –⁠moogsi (blah) 02:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Kept. Images portraying the copyrighted character design of Popeye have been eliminated. -- SethAllen623 (talk) 16:30, Friday, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Category:The Spirit of '43[edit]

If the files in this category are about to be deleted, then I suspect that the category itself must be deleted as well, as it will be empty. SethAllen623 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the film wasn't renewed. File:Spirit 43 - Title card - títol.JPG isn't a derivative work of any copyrighted artwork as far as I can tell, so that image can be kept although the rest has to be deleted. I'm not sure if File:Spirit 43 - Scrooge - Oncle Picsou - Garrepa.JPG counts as a derivative work of Donald Duck. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:The New Spirit[edit]

This category should be deleted because it is empty. SethAllen623 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Yi Ok-san[edit]

This category is about a Korean painter (Joseon period). Nobody was ever named *Yi Oksan*. Oksan is one of the pen names of the painter, while the 'true name' is Yi U. Source: the Grove Art Dictionary. Since the given name is very short (and prone to ambiguity), I think that introducing the date of birth is a good choice. This leads to Category:Yi U (1542).

--Pldx1 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sculptures of Christianity[edit]

"Christian sculptures" for this category and its subcats seems of more natual. A sculpture or a statue of something depicts that thing –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Exists since 8 years without a problem, has hundreds if not 2000 subcats with the same syntax. Needs clearer insight about the naming of current and future subcats for all the various branches of Christianity: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Restorationists branches. --Foroa (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstand why I think this is a bad name. 2000 is pushing it somewhat. These are the categories that have awkward ESL names:

That's it. When a work of art is "of" something, that thing always what the art depicts. If you look at the subcats they are all statues of Jesus or of bishops etc. They already make sense. You can't have a statue of an abstract concept (unless it is abstract itself, or a personification). As this is not a wide-ranging change, there is no provision for the future except that I would probably avoid "sculptures of Catholicism" or "statues of Seventh-day Adventism" –⁠moogsi (blah) 18:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

What means an ESL name ? There are indeed much less involved cats that I thought, but:

There are plenty of Category:Sculptures by subject where the subject is the last term.

Christian statues in China and Singapore sounds even more wrong, are they baptised ?

I'm still convinced that the naming has to leave place for the twenty or so variants on Christianity. --Foroa (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

If you object to the word "Christian" to describe a statue, please look at the definition of the adjective Christian. No of course they are not baptised, which is why it's more understandable than would be "Statues of Christianity in China" :)

Christianity is an abstract concept; compare the more obvious ones like e.g., Category:Emotions in art. Why are there no "sculptures of boredom" or "paintings of frustration" like the other "in art" categories? They are not tangible subjects, neither is Christianity. To use an abstract concept in this way is not idiomatic in English.

"Catholic art" is a category we should probably have, and of course we would have "Catholic statues" or whatever. Of course "Catholicism in art" is fine, "Catholicism in sculpture" is ok, even though it sounds like a module of a degree which nobody chooses. "Catholicism in statues"? "Catholicism in reliefs"? "Statues of Catholicism"? Oh you mean Catholic statues. Right.

It's very rude of me, I know, but what I mean by ESL is usage which appears to be gramatically, semantically, syntactically, etc. correct, but doesn't make sense because it isn't idiomatic. And this is another reason why it sucks that the category tree is still just in English on an international project –⁠moogsi (blah) 16:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Monuments of Christianity[edit]

Somewhat ambiguous name. This actually seems to mean Category:Christian monuments. –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Monumento Histórico[edit]

This category should be disambiguated. Monumento Histórico is Spanish for Historical Monument and hence it is a common term in Spanish speaking countries. Currently, this category includes images mainly from Chile. Jespinos (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree, I would prefer rename and deletion as people tend to drop anyway masses of images in such categories without bothering if it's right. Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories requires quite some maintenance work and few people maintain/expand disambiguation categories. --Foroa (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You can feel free to make a decision about the best solution for this issue. Jespinos (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Players of Sweden women's national football team[edit]

Note that this procedure hasn’t been opened for questioning the abovementioned category. I’m not against this category. I am questioning its upper categorization. This is a pilot procedure regarding all the categories Country name women’s national sport name team : do we have to keep them as a subcategory of the alike men’s national team? I suppose that the logics should be categorizing both at the same rank and that there should be a metacategory named Country name national sport name teams (note the plural on teams) where they both should be included. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 21:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Thanksgiving by year[edit]

Sparsely populated category tree, of dubious value, created by a contributor who tends to create year categories like a machine regardless of whether they are warranted or not. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The nomination applies to all of the subcats therein. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Those in the 2000s are highly populated. J 1982 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really. You have spent some time in the last day scrambling, and now you have a small number of subcats with more than a dozen images. Still doesn't address why we need this entire category structure, when a simple history of Thanksgiving by country would have done the trick. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

We have Thanksgiving by country too. J 1982 (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's enough. No need for annual. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The categories are intressant. Obelix (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

One's subjective level of interest is not a valid rationale for a category tree. And we'd still have the content, and categories related to Thanksgiving, which is presumably what interests you. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Compound foods containing cheese[edit]

upmerge cheese flavoured snackfoods to cheese based food, this layer is not needed Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Quesos[edit]

change to Queso fresco or Queso blanco, the terms used for fresh cheeses in latin america Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Blue cheese textures[edit]

upmerge to cheese textures Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Support just another 1-file category –⁠moogsi (blah) 20:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Feral cats by country[edit]

I started Category:Feral cats by location, a few days ago. Another contributor has come along and started a very similar category: Category:Feral cats by country. Without any attempt at discussion they poached all the images in the category I started, putting them in the new category. The original category has since been deleted. I see several reasons to organize by location, instead of by country. First, we might know an images was from a particular mountain range, or river basin, but not know which country it was from, if the mountain range or river basin spanned national boundaries. By location is more flexible, and would allow, for instance, Category:Feral cats of the Danube basin, or Category:Feral cats of the Pyrenees. I've been contributing here for eight years, I have encountered lots of instances when a usurper hijacks the contents of an existing category, but I don't remember ever encountering a single instance when I thought an unexplained hijacking was justified. Even when the hijacker is called upon to explain their hijacking, and it turns out they did have good reasons, after all, the unexplained hijacking is a mistake for several reasons. First, the hijacking upsets other people. Second, if there is a valid justification, it should go on the record, because those who started the original category deserve to be informed as to why the categor name they initially chose was a mistake -- if in fact it was a mistake. Geo Swan (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No hijiacking by my side. But such categories should be by country, or at least by city. An hypotetical category Feral cats of the Pyrenees will be a subcategory of both Feral cats in France and Feral cats in Spain. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 08:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:People by occupation by alphabet[edit]

this should be merged with Category:People by occupation. having a flat category is no longer done here, per Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Categories by alphabet (actually, on Wikipedia, this would be an administrative category for a WikiProject or Task Force). some of these occuations are still not in the other category. very confusing, must be resolved. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Hardened cottage cheese Gomolka (Gomolkez)[edit]

underpopulated, can be safely deleted, file is well categorized Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Weak oppose May as well leave it there unless you think gomolka will drop out of existence this year, or no-one will ever take another free image of it, or it's exactly synonymous with something else. But a rename to Category:Gomolka would seem to be in order –⁠moogsi (blah) 05:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Carré Frais[edit]

underpopulated, not a major candidate for expansion, file is well categorized. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been educated on the acceptability of very small categories like this, and names of people. i withdraw this nomination on the basis of policy allowing such small categories, like company brands. live and learn.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Etiquette for Chocolate[edit]

"etiquette" is another term for packaging, in spanish i beleive. I suggest Category:Chocolate packaging or maybe Category:Chocolate labels Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Name should be improved, but there is a need for a category for individual packaging, presentation and labeling of each chocolate (portion). --Foroa (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Category:Chocolate packaging. @Foroa: subcats Category:Chocolate wrappers (individual pieces), Category:Chocolate bar wrappers (bar packaging) Category:Chocolate boxes, etc. ? –⁠moogsi (blah) 15:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Chocolaterie[edit]

Upmerge to Category:Chocolate shops, this is simply french term for shop, and is not just french shops Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A chocolaterie is an (artisanal) place where they make chocolate in the first place and sell chocolates. A chocolate shop sells only. No reason to merge. --Foroa (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: Agree with Foroa. A Chocolaterie is a Chocolate shop, but a Chocolate shop is not usually a Chocolaterie. Category:Chocolaterie should remain a subcategory of Category:Chocolate shops and of Category:Manufacture of chocolate, otherwise the link with manufacture is lost. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment you're probably correct. if no one else more knowledgeable than i chimes in as i do, i say keep. I am used to having many "chocolate shops" in the San Francisco Bay Area which are essentially chocolateries, such as sharfenberger, and not as many non-production chocolate shops (usually we have instead candy shops or general food stores). I can see how its a useful distinction. I think creating a category and article on the english wp for this term would be useful (it exists on the french wp).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Chocolate massage[edit]

not a shop which offers massage with melted chocolate, just a shop name, category is not needed. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. [4] --Foroa (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I didnt say that chocolate massage doesnt exist. i said this image is not one of a "chocolate massage" parlor. I seriously doubt that any massage parlor would provide only chocolate massage. we dont have any images of chocolate massage on WC, so its an empty category if kept. OK, i just noticed the second window lists chocolate massage as a service. so we have one tangential image for chocolate massage. still, categories need to have more than one image, or the potential for more. Category:massage doesnt have categories for oil massage, or other many forms, just a few major ones.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Many categories on Commons start with one single image, the category has the potential to attract real chocolate massage images; this can generate the ideas for people that search images for example in Flickr. --Foroa (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Grushauka (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Hrušaǔka (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Akademiya Nauk (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Akademija navuk (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Borisovski Trakt (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Barysaŭski trakt (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Institut Kultury (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Instytut kuĺtury (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mihalova (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Michalova (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Moskovskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Maskoŭskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Oktyabrskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kastryčnickaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Park Cheluskintsev (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Park Čaliuskincaŭ (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ploschad Pobedy (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Plošča Pieramohi (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ploschad Yakuba Kolasa (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Plošča Jakuba Kolasa (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ploshad Lenina (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Plošča Lienina Kolasa (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Uruch'e (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Uručča (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Vostok (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Uschod (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Avtozavodskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Aŭtazavodskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Frunzenskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Frunzienskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kamennaya Gorka (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kamiennaja Horka (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kuncevshina (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kuncaŭščyna (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kupalovskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kupalaŭskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mogilyovskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Mahilioŭskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Molodezhnaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Maladziožnaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Nemiga (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Niamiha (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Partizanskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Partyzanskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pervomayskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Pieršamajskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Proletarskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Pralietarskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pushkinskaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Puškinskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sportivnaya (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Spartyŭnaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Traktorny Zavod (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Traktarny zavod (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Siemens ULF B[edit]

I cannot think of any potential use, since the only user of this tram type is currently the Vienna tram operator (which has its own subcategory), so there will not any time soon be any files categorized here directly darkweasel94 Diskussion/talk/diskuto 20:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: The related types Category:Vienna tram type ULF A, Category:Vienna tram type ULF A1 and Category:Vienna tram type ULF B1 all do not have a similar parent category - which makes the list of subcategories of Category:ULF seem inconsistent. darkweasel94 Diskussion/talk/diskuto 21:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Banknotes of Cuba[edit]

Empty category. 84.61.184.160 12:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Leave it empty and document it properly, it will be recreated every now and then anyway. --Foroa (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Banknotes of Ireland was deleted due to perpetual copyright. --84.61.184.160 07:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banknotes of Cuba, Cuban banknotes are protected by perpetual copyright. --84.61.184.160 07:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone uploading or categorizing images is aware of that –⁠moogsi (blah) 23:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Info I've edited the category's description. Rybec (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Banknotes of Ireland should be restored with a similar warning. --84.61.184.160 18:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Collections of the Science Museum (London)[edit]

Upmerge to Category:Science Museum (London). Pointless excess level of navigation Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Many categories for institutions have a subcategory "Collections of..". There is a meaningful difference between the museum and the collections of the museum, (museum category can have.. pictures of the museum, logos of the museum, etc.) –⁠moogsi (blah) 11:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Puffing Billy in the Science Museum (London)[edit]

Upmerge (actually restore) to Category:Puffing Billy (locomotive UK) and Category:Steam engines in the Science Museum (London). There is only one original Puffing Billy. Images of it, whether old or modern, should remain together. We already have separate cats for replicas, but splitting the original apart too is pointless. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

respectfully

Oppose -- not all the files we have show the locomotive @ the Science Museum (London). a sub-cat of the files that do show it "in situ" @ the museum can be included as a subcat of the Science Museum (London), HOWEVER, files that DO NOT show the locomotive @ the museum, DO NOT belong in a sub-cat for the museum. rename the subcat to something better, if you can think of it, but "undifferentiating" the files would be a mistake. Lx 121 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

All the modern files we have show the loco in the Science Museum (it isn't moving anywhere, it hasn't been anywhere else in preservation). All the old files show this same loco. I see no reason to split them apart. The only sources of confusion would be with the modern replicas, and those are rightly split already. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

with all due respect, you are simply ignoring the point of my objection: THE PICS OF BILLY IN THE SCIENCE MUSEUM BELONG AS A SUB-CAT OF THE SCIENCE MUSEUM, THE PICS OF BILLY NOT IN THE SCIENCE MUSEUM DO NOT BELONG THERE. Lx 121 (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou, your argument suddenly becomes so much more persuasive when you shout the same thing over and over in block capitals.

with all due respect, i find block capitals to be useful, when the person i am having a discussion with ignores my points, & repeats their own arguements Lx 121 (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nor was this edit particularly accurate. Puffing Billy is a specific historical locomotive in the UK, not merely every tourist train or cartoon using the text "Puffing Billy". If you're so obviously unaware of this, I wonder how you can really judge this category?

at the time, i was using hotcat & wanted to see if the cited category (which came up in the hotcat list) had anything to do with the topic at hand. i note that in your comment, you have failed to note that I CORRECTED THE MIS-CATEGORIZATION IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS.

--this is me using block capitals again Lx 121 (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Science Museum is a museum; exhibits are rarely placed in there when brand new, but because they've already had some significant history outside. When we (frequently) create a category for such an individual exhibit, is your implied suggestion now that every item requires two categories, one for its pre-museum history and one for it in the museum? Why? What advantage is conveyed by this? Readers are looking for media related to a topic, the individual, and we ought to give them that media as simply and efficiently as possible. There is no reason or advantage into splitting up coverage of the same subject, merely by its location. This is not a large category and it's unlikely to ever become one. There is no reason (as there might be for a touring exhibit) to split its display into groups by particular performances or appearances.

The notion that MediaWiki categorization is strongly ontologically defining is a common misunderstanding. It is not, it is not subtle enough to do that, it is a serious mistake to think that it is. All that categorization defines is convenient navigation and grouping for our readers. If it is convenient for us to make a "Things that are exhibited in" category for an exhibit in the museum, it is not a strong implication that every image within that category is of that image whilst being exhibited (only rare cases, such as touring exhibits, benefit from such a split). Such a transitive implication is no more implied there than the other equally implicit membership that Puffing Billy is a district in London, because the museum is itself categorized as a visitor attraction in Kensington!

We might choose to create these split exhibit by location categories. For some exhibits, like Deltic DP1, that have moved from the Science Musuem to the National Railway Museum, then there's a good case to do so. However in this case, and in most cases, it's simple over-splitting of categories such that it makes the navigation over-fragmented for readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

end result: we simply disagree about this.

in my opinion, the subcategories for the science museum should contain material relevant to the science museum.

we also clearly disagree about how "fine-grained" the categorization schema @ wmc should be.

i'm not sure if there is any point in going any further on this, as we are both simply arguing the same points we started with, using more & sometimes longer words.

i remain opposed to the merge. it would mess up the science-museum subcats unnecessarily. it does no "harm" differentiating the files in this way; any reasonably competent and-user can simply move between categories. if we actually had a decent amount of material about this engine, we'd be sub-dividing it into even more categories; with some files belonging in more than one of them.

Lx 121 (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Food quality[edit]

POV category FAEP (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

why? no for me, Food of Italy o Italian cuisine (for example) is a great example of Quality food and is no promotional (for me). This file: File:Extrusion screw speed and fit affecting pasta quality.pdf is the only one in category and does not seem POV --Pava (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This cateory seems relevant to me. It could contain subcategories like Category:QWpsr, Category:Appellations (cf. en:Category:Appellations) and Category:Organic food for instance and also by country stuff like Category:Food quality in Italy (which would itself contain Category:QWpsr of Italy and equivalents of en:Category:Italian DOC or en:Category:Italian DOCG). - Olybrius (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment perhaps this is useful for food testing, like coffee tasters (Category:Coffee cupping)?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's not a POV category, but it was obviously (and intentionally) misused by Pava. Just For The Record: He tried to enforce the same nonsense here.--FAEP (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Food from Italy[edit]

Why is this category a subcat of "Food quality" ? FAEP (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No idea, seems weird. You should ask User:Pava. - Olybrius (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Food from Italy is an example of food quality [5] and [6] Fao in Rome. PS nobody warned me :( !!!--Pava (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Food from Italy is not an appellation and has nothing to do with quality certification. - Olybrius (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

ohm sorry, i am wrong category. (now i have know: is a name which refers to another category about Italian food) thank you very much --Pava (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Products of Italy[edit]

Why was this category a subcat of "Category:Quality" ? FAEP (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

because category High Quality no exist :( . Products of Italy are synonymous of quality source --Pava (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Eurocopter Group[edit]

Why is this category a subcat of "Category:Finmeccanica" and "Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Italy" ??? FAEP (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Its a mistake. Eurocopter never had an Italian owner or partner. Just delete it. --maxxl2 - talk 10:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Typically user:Pava. --Foroa (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

sorry I was wrong, you're right --Pava (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Common[edit]

Suggest category be renamed Common (Musician) as a lot of other photos get thrown in the Common category that aren't about the musician Mjrmtg (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Support move to Category:Common (entertainer). --Foroa (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Gasoline safety lamps[edit]

Rename - "gasoline" is either too broad (in some languages) or incorrect (in others). "Gasoline", as the flammable spirit used in gasoline engines or petrol engines is hazardous to use, owing to the risk of its vapour igniting. Instead, safe lamp oils with much lower vapour flammability are used. I find it literally incredible that mining safety lamps would ever be used with motor spirit "gasoline".

If (as I suspect), this name has arisen because "gasoline" in some languages is closer to lamp oil or kerosene, then we should still rename, to avoid confusion elsewhere.

Note that for plumber's blowlamps, both paraffin/kerosene and petrol/gasoline forms exist, but that they are mechanically quite different in construction, owing to their different fuels. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, en:Safety lamp stops just short before the invention of the gasoline safety lamp in 1884 by german inventor Carl Wolf, founder of Friemann&Wolf. Although, the Wolf Safety lamp should be known both in England and America, as Friemann&Wolf has had dependencies in both countrys, which where riped of them in the aftermath of WWI, to become Wolf Safety Lamp Co., New York and Sheffield, respectively. Anyway, gasoline fueled safety lamps burn much brighter and with less (virtually without) soot than oil safety lamps. How to make it explosion proof? The answer, Carl Wolf has found, was to use cotton wool inside the fuel tank. The gasoline will be soaked up by the wool, which delivers it to the wick. This was a rather lengthy explanation, i would prefer if people get used to the subject first, before starting such a discussion (at commons!). It would be not unwise to ask me at my discussion page, i will always kindly explain things.

To make a long story short: AFAIK gasoline is the right term. We in german call it "Benzin" and those lamps therefore "Benzinsicherheitslampen". --Markscheider (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

So if there is indeed a specific group for gasoline, then how do we communicate this, and how do we check that lamps illustrated actually belong there? Why is there still nothing at en:Safety lamp? I'm unconvinced that File:Donetsk rm 35.jpg belongs in this group. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

While i'm able to check the pics and sort them out here, writing an article on en:wp is probably beyond my limits. File:Donetsk rm 35.jpg is o.k., because there are two gasoline safety lamps in the background. --Markscheider (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

How can one tell that they're gasoline? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I know this types. Left stands a Friemann&Wolf type 300, right (with some degree of uncertainty, because the fuel tank is not visible) a Friemann&Wolf type 300 or 400. I'm a collector and do some repair as well as selling spares. --Markscheider (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Eye diagrams[edit]

What would you expect to be in this category? (Assuming you have no knowledge of oscilloscopes) –⁠moogsi (blah) 20:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Bays[edit]

Should Category:Bays be a subcategory of Category:Coasts? Bays can be either coastal or on lakes and reservoirs. Another editor has argued that Category:Bays of Wales should be a subcategory of Category:Coasts of Wales because nearly all bays in Wales are coastal. However, this produces a situation where images of bays on lakes high in the Welsh mountains are now part of the Category:Coasts of Wales category tree. I suppose that it could be argued that the shore of a lake is a "coast", but that seems to be stretching it a bit to me. Other opinions would be welcomed. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Models by topic[edit]

Seems to be a duplicate of Category:Models by subject. Should these be merged (with one left as a redirect)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

To explain more fully: We have a Category:Categories by subject and a Category:Categories by topic, and I'm not sure that I fully understand the difference, assuming that a difference exists. In this particular instance, though, it seems like there isn't a difference: the 'subject' and the 'topic' of a model (e.g., an airplane model) should be the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

once upon a time i planned 'subject' as 'what is modelled', and 'topic' 'where one uses them': Cat:Architectural models‎ is a 'topic', Cat:Building interior miniatures‎ is a 'subject', Cat:Traffic models‎ is a 'topic', Cat:Car models is a 'subject'. but let's merge. W!B: (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cups of Espresso[edit]

rename to Cups of espresso, correct capitalization Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Melitta coffemakers[edit]

Correct spelling is Melitta coffeemakers Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please add a command at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, use {{move}}, or move the category yourself. See Commons:Rename a category. Thanks –⁠moogsi (blah) 05:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks, i didnt know i had those options.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Second Cup in Edmonton[edit]

lone image, already categorized appropriately. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Now two, perhaps more to come, and now also a sub category of Second Cup like other major canadian cities. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Asian Regional Conference[edit]

This category, if at all it should exist, should be titled differently. "Asian Regional Conference" is not even the title of the conference. It can either be "1947 ILO Asian Regional Conference" or we can have a parent category instead "ILO Asian Regional Conferences" or something similar. Thanks, Rahul Bott (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: I've copied the files to a more descriptive category. This redundant category can be deleted now. Rahul Bott (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Women of Curaçao[edit]

is it really useful to separate out the women? Vera (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not? We do it with every other geographic location. Nightscream (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep unless you also want to delete all of Category:Women by country. --rimshot^talk 06:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

March 2013[edit]

Category:Transport in Halifax Regional Municipality[edit]

Because the current name is (1) not obvious; (2) does not reflect the history of the region. The name "Halifax Regional Municipality" is opaque to anyone outside the region. Following the principle of least astonishment we should have something like Category:Halifax, Nova Scotia. Second Halifax is one of the oldest cities in North America, but "Halifax Regional Municipality" is recent. I suggest images from before its creation should not be included in this category. The regional municipality amalgamated municipalities that had a separate existence. If there are multiple historical photos taken in those historic municipalities they too merit separate categories. Geo Swan (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree. Most large cities in Canada are the result of amalgamations and annexations over the years, and what you are proposing for Halifax is quite different than the approach we've taken for Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, etc. It's unfortunate that Nova Scotia, in a wasted effort to appease people opposed to amalgamation, chose a name for the new municipality that only a bureaucrat could love and didn't just call the new city "Halifax" like everyone else. While the official HRM name might be opaque to non-Nova Scotians, what's worse is requiring them to have an understanding of the region's history and geography such that they know what media predates or postdates amalgamation and to always know what community it pertains to. At least the name problem can be addressed through explanatory text and redirects. Moreover, do we really need to create to full category structures for all the various communities except where needed (we don't for the former municipalities in Toronto, so why would we for, say, Bedford?), beyond the neighbourhood categories we have on Commons for former boroughs and municipalities that make up Canada's cities. From a categorization perspective, the best approach is to treat Halifax (terrible new name notwithstanding) like any other urban municipality. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Paintings by production area by country[edit]

I'm not sure this is helpful, "Paintings in Brazil by production area" particularly breaks the rule of keeping nationalities out of the category system. moogsi (blah) 02:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a rule of "keeping nationalities out of the category system? If there is, it clearly has never been in action. There are dozens of categories alike. I also see no reason why there should be such a rule. Dornicke (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't phrase this very well... there is no "rule" as such, but as far as artists and artwork go, there are no "French artists" or "British paintings". There are "Artists from France" and "Paintings from the United Kingdom". It seems like there is no difference, but I try to explain it in my post here. So no rules are being broken, but it is against established practice. My issue isn't with this category itself... I have probably nominated the wrong category for discussion here... it is more with the subcats:

Category:Spanish paintings by country (→ Category:Paintings from Spain by country)
Category:Paintings in Brazil by production area (which named fine but isn't "Paintings by production area by country". It's "Paintings by country by production area". Additionally the subcats are the ones with the problem I describe above and need renaming).

The horrible thing about works of art is that there are 2 location trees:

Production area (e.g. Category:Paintings by production area): the top is at the national level, the bottom is at the level of a town. The top is more interesting.
Location: (e.g. Category:Paintings by location): the top is at the national level, the bottom is at the level of a room in a gallery. The bottom is more interesting.

I say "more interesting" from the perspective of people using the category system to find media --moogsi (blah) 21:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename Category:Paintings by area of production by country "by production area" is horribly unidiomatic English and unclear. It should be "by area of production", or perhaps "by cultural origin" or something. The objection to "Spanish paintings" etc is dubious, and certainly does not reflect normal practice in art history. "by current location" would make all these categories clearer than "by country". Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Demolished buildings in New York City[edit]

It seems to duplicate the purpose of the category "Former buildings in New York City". Hamblin (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose adding a redirect to "Category:Demolished buildings in New York City" pointing to "Category:Former buildings in New York City".

As I have mentioned in one of the talk pages, the global Category:Demolished buildings is a daughter cat of Category:Former buildings, hence the proposal would better address the global categories and their entire respective trees. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree it would make more sense to address this at the global level (of this tree). Hamblin (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I have opened a discussion on "Category:Demolished buildings". Hamblin (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Vote yes for your proposal. Former has a better ring to it. A bot can clean up the cats on pages. — Dogears (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps might be confused with a former function, as in Category:Buildings in the United States by former function and in particular cases like Church of the Holy Communion and Buildings, a Category:Secularized churches and former nightclub, now a small retail venue. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Demolished buildings. Thank you. Hamblin (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep, because it would confuse the category tree. If we get rid of the entire Demolished buildings category in the other discussion (an idea that I've supported), its subcategories will get merged into the former buildings subcategories, thus accomplishing what Hamblin hoped to have done with this category. Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Right. Hamblin (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Hashemites[edit]

Compared with en:Category:House of Hashim, en:Hashemites, this category and its sub categories are exaggerated and swollen per Ashrf1979's POV. Takabeg (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

house of Hashim modern term used in Jordan and Iraq , Hashemites is Old term for all the people and families that descended from Hashim grandfather of the Prophet MuhammadAshrf1979 (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Arms of Other People and Institutions of New Zealand[edit]

What is the purpose of this category? Is says it a user category, but it is not. Leyo 15:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep It appears that User:A1 Aardvark has created a series of categories that contain only his or her images (I haven't looked at all of them, but the first ten I spot checked all were). They are all tagged {{user category}}. The template does not require that the user name be used, so I think they are technically OK as is. It would, of course, be better if they were tagged {{User category|A1 Aardvark}} both because it would sort them correctly in Category:User_categories and identify them individually. We might even consider reworking the template so that it required the name of the user. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not opposing such categories, but not with names that do not identify them as user categories. See also Commons talk:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy#Notability and the naming of user categories. Hence, rename the category. --Leyo 16:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

While I agree completely with you that the name is not good, the Talk page you cite is not policy, so this is technically OK. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that it should be clear even without a specific policy that is must be clear from the name whether a category is a user category or a normal content category. I am aware that it's not relevant here, but in de.wikipedia all user categories must be named Kategorie:Benutzer:…. --Leyo 17:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, I agree, but without a policy on the subject, you can't enforce it except by strongly suggesting it to users. As it stands, we cannot delete this category just because we think it very bad practice. I would support a policy change if you wanted to start it rolling. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

We have Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy and I don't think we need a separate page for the matter discussed above. I therefore made a suggestion concerning an addition on its talk page. --Leyo 19:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pflanzen und Tiere[edit]

Inacceptable naming for a user category. The pictures might be moved to Category:Pictures taken by Werner100359/Pflanzen und Tiere. Leyo 16:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Demolished buildings[edit]

"Demolished" is close enough in meaning to "Former" to cause confusion, both for categorizers and for users of categories. Hamblin (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It is common for buildings left unattended to disintegrate by natural causes and leave only ruins. That would be "Former buildings". "Demolished buildings" should be used for buildings deliberately destroyed by man. My 2 cents. Lionel Allorge (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a category "Ruins", but it is not a subcategory of "Former buildings". Hamblin (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What Lionel Allorge said. Former buildings also includes those destroyed by fire, earthquake, storms, bombings, etc. - Eureka Lott 15:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Fires, earthquakes, storms, bombings don't demolish buildings? Hamblin (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No, they can destroy buildings, but they don't demolish them. Demolition is a deliberate human act. - Eureka Lott 16:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite an authority for that? Hamblin (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you try reading the Wikipedia article linked above? This isn't a complicated concept. - Eureka Lott 16:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It is to the editors at Cambridge. Cambridge Dictionaries Online Hamblin (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Since you agree there is much ambiguity that needs to be addressed, how would you address it? Hamblin (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in debating semantics. Regardless of what we call the category, I think it's useful to separate buildings that were intentionally razed from those that were destroyed in other ways, like Category:Collapsed buildings.

The ambiguity I was referring to on the other talk page had to do with the usage of the word "former". It's currently used in more than one way, and it can be confusing. For example, Category:Former buildings is for buildings that no longer exist, but Category:Former post offices covers existing buildings that previously served as post offices. - Eureka Lott 16:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And how would you fix that?

And does "intentionally razed" include criminal acts? Military acts? Hamblin (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose renaming "Category:Demolished buildings" as "Category:Purposely demolished buildings". Hamblin (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's got the same problems you outlined above: what if a building burns down and it's not known if it was accident or arson? What if an arms factory is bombed but some houses get destroyed instead? Were those buildings destroyed purposely? --moogsi (blah) 08:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition ← I think this is what Category:Demolished buildings actually wants to be. The key is that using the word "demolition" in the context of buildings has the VERY strong connotation that it was done on purpose ("demolition engineer", "controlled demolition", w:Demolition, etc.) "Demolish", not so much --moogsi (blah) 07:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You have a point. But I don't really understand the purpose of the category, by either name. Aren't most former buildings destroyed by demolition? Those that aren't must be the minorities, I would say: "Destroyed by nature", "Destroyed by fire", "Destroyed by arson", "Destroyed by war". In that context, "Destroyed by demolition" would seem more natural. Hamblin (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A pleasant expansion of what started in Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Demolished buildings in New York City. So, we seem to tend to an opinion that "former buildings" are "buildings no longer existing" for whatever causation or reason. As for a former stable converted to a house and dynamited by the Army to contain an urban fire that couldn't be stopped by normal means because an earthquake destroyed the water mains, many subcategories can be created for the time, place direct cause, indirect cause and other circumstances of demise, as appropriate for the purposes of categorization. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does occur to me that, most of the time, why the building is not there is not relevant to the content of the category, unless there is media of it being destroyed --moogsi (blah) 23:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else like to weigh in? Please do. Hamblin (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. There's no practical reason to have separate categories for buildings that got destroyed on purpose, buildings that got destroyed by accident, buildings that gradually ceased to exist (e.g. an abandoned building that gradually falls to pieces), etc. File:Grandview Apostolic Church rubble pile from northeast.jpg and the building at the center of File:Sandusky and Main in Mechanicsburg.jpg both got destroyed in 2010, but one was arsoned while the other was demolished by the owner; why shouldn't they be categorised together? If you really care about putting an image in the "correct" category, these categories will cause problems if you know only that the building in question no longer exists. The method of destruction isn't really important (unless the act of destruction is happening when the picture is taken), so let's make it all simpler by merging the former and the demolished, together with anything else that may exist for method of destruction. Note that "Demolished buildings" shouldn't cease to exist; it should be converted into a category redirect, since people will surely try to put images into it. Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Support It's as I say above: people may look for media of buildings based on whether they exist any more, but the chances of them looking for buildings based on how they were destroyed is extremely slim (99% of the time it has no bearing on the content of the category). If people actually want to find media about demolition, they are better off looking in Category:Building demolition. Other methods of destruction, Category:Damaged buildings. Redirecting "Demolished buildings" to there may be better, because most people won't be aware of the odd quirk of the category system that makes "Demolished buildings" mean "completely demolished buildings". I'm fine with either way, though --moogsi (blah) 20:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

So, we seem to have 3 or 4 in agreement, and I'm not seeing a firm dissent. Contemplating killing not just a cat or a small branch or two, but a moderate sized tree, ought we seek more publicity and opinions, or are we enough? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

We should probably seek more input, but how? Hamblin (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to throw a stick very far on Commons to find someone who disagrees with you, so I put this here. I think this is a wider issue than this cat and I'd like to know what people think. I expect the consensus on this will be something like, "leave it there, it's not hurting anyone, just rename it if it's confusing". To be honest I didn't see the extent of the "by country" categories - even if there were a 100% solid reason for getting rid of this, it would still be extremely difficult --moogsi (blah) 04:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a bot? Hamblin (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If I understand your assessment correctly, you are suggesting that if “Demolished buildings” is deleted, then all categories that start with “Demolished” must be deleted also, like “Demolished buildings in the United States”, “Demolished churches”, etc. But I don’t think so. Deleting each of them would be a separate project that editors could evaluate individually, if interested. Needless to say, the same reasoning would apply, but that doesn’t mean they must all be done at once. The difficulty of that might indeed be prohibitive, without a bot. Hamblin (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not technically difficult - I was referring to the difficulty of gaining consensus to make a large change, even if it is justified. Maybe it is not justified and someone has a good counterpoint. And yes, the problem with "Demolished buildings" is necessarily a problem with all of it subcategories, there is no point in debating them separately -moogsi (blah) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

To me;

demolished buildings are buildings that are completely disappeared, for whatever what reason.
former buildings refers to the former function that it was holding: many former train stations and town halls became bars, pubs, shop. Hundreds, if not thousands of churches will be reallocated in the coming years.

Those cats help to separate an era/owner/function, otherwise people tend to merge them all under the currently used name. --Foroa (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly valid to distinguish between buildings that have been repurposed and buildings that do not exist any longer. The problem is that it isn't obvious that "Former buildings" and "Demolished buildings" mean what you mean by them; they are vague terms. Hamblin (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You are pointing out the difference between Category:Former buildings and Category:Buildings by former function. When you say the former, most will think of the latter. There is a some confusion over this because the building and the function it has very often have the same name. It's easier to see in cases where they don't - when the museum/school/whatever has a different name from the building, or is in many separate buildings. However, you will often see institutions categorized under "buildings" because most of the time it's hard to see a meaningful difference --moogsi (blah) 18:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If the consensus turns out to be "leave it there, it's not hurting anyone, just rename it if it's confusing", we still have the question of what distinction is intended, and what terms to use to make that distinction clearly. Hamblin (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment I only saw this discussion now. Thank you to those trying to clear up what is currently quite a mess (one that has always frustrated me). My two cents:
First, I strongly disagree with the idea that we can deal with the top categories, and let the subcategories be evaluated individually and dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I agree with Moogsi on that point. It doesn't solve the problem if we leave inconsistently named category trees. Whatever is decided should be implemented down the line.

Second, we should not be using Category:Former buildings as a category tree for destroyed/demolished buildings. It is too confusing with categories related to buildings by former function. I would empty it out and redirect it.

Third, I think the category tree for buildings that cease to exist should be Category:Destroyed buildings, as it is somewhat broader in scope than Category:Demolished buildings (I agree that the latter does convey the sense that the building was deliberately destroyed, rather than those buildings destroyed by fire, war, etc.).--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution. Thank you for the idea. Hamblin (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the position on Category:Former buildings: you want to get it completely isolated (and split) from Category:Destroyed buildings, or you want it to get completely emptied, in which case I see tens or hundreds of problematic categories, such as the ones in Category:Buildings by former association and Category:Buildings by former function. --Foroa (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Both. But when I talked about it being emptied, I did not mean that we would do the same for Category:Buildings by former association and Category:Buildings by former function. It was due to the fact that Category:Former buildings confusingly links those two subcategory trees to categories pertaining to destroyed buildings. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's empty out the images from the Former buildings categories and put them into the Buildings by former association and Buildings by former function trees. Former buildings can become a parent for those two trees, and its subcategories can become parents for the same areas' Buildings by former function and Buildings by former association; for example, Former buildings in New Zealand could become the parent for Former churches in New Zealand. Meanwhile, as I said up above, let's not delete anything in the sense of turning it into a redlink; all of these categories have reasonable names and are likely to be used again. Instead, let's add {{category redirect}} to the categories that we're deprecating through this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with all of that, except turning Category:Former buildings into a parent category. Ideally Category:Former buildings should exist as a disambiguation category for Category:Buildings by former association and Category:Buildings by former function; if it exists as a proper parent category, people will simply fill it through hotcat with images of demolished or otherwise destroyed buildings. It's clear from this discussion, as well as the current state of the categories, that the term "former building" is widely considered to be synonymous with "destroyed building", and if we leave Category:Former buildings as a real category we will be having this discussion again in three years. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm in favor of renaming the Category:Buildings by former function tree to Category:Repurposed buildings. I think it would greatly reduce its ambiguity. We could replace a category like Category:Former libraries with Repurposed libraries, reducing the chance of confusing it with Category:Demolished libraries - Eureka Lott 15:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I had neglected this discussion as having become too profound for my frivolous mind, but yes, "Repurposed" seems the proper root for the various branches of this "former purpose" tree. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Destroyed buildings is currently (since 2010) a redirect pointing to Category:Demolished buildings. Should we reverse that? Hamblin (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct any errors I have made, but this is where I think we stand:

All "Demolished buildings" categories are renamed "Destroyed buildings". Category:Demolished buildings is redirected to Category:Destroyed buildings, and subcategories are similarly redirected to their corresponding new categories.
All "Buildings by former function" categories are renamed "Repurposed buildings". Category:Buildings by former function is redirected to Category:Repurposed buildings, and subcategories are similarly redirected.
Category:Former buildings becomes a disambiguation category for Category:Buildings by former association, Category:Repurposed buildings and Category:Destroyed buildings (any one of which being what someone looking for "former buildings" could want.

Have I missed anything? Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that is correct. Hamblin (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been open nearly two months, and there seems to be a consensus in support of the above proposal. Would someone with the know-how volunteer to close the discussion (as per Commons:Categories for discussion#Closing a discussion) and carry out the changes proposed? Hamblin (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I have started the implementation. We should keep the discussion open for a short time, in case there are any issues arising from the implementation. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. "Destroyed" is rather a broad term, whereas "demolished" is rather a narrow term. Example is a building is destroyed by fire is unforeseen but a demolition of a building is always foreseen, since it is planned. I can't see why both can't exist. Really this discussion doesn't have a strong consensus, nor does the changes made by Skeezix1000 (talk · contribs) which really one has two people support. Bidgee (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

First, I think you need to reread the discussion if you think I acted on "two people support". Honestly, the lengths people will go to criticize.

Second, no one said demolished=destroyed. In fact, quite the opposite. And nothing stops someone from creating a subcategory later on that is strictly for demolished buildings (as stated above, Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition if we have similar categories for fire, war, etc. or even just Category:Demolished buildings). But the categories right now are an unorganized mix of buildings both demolished and destroyed, and unless someone wants to do an analysis of all the media to determine what was demolished, what collapsed, what was destroyed by fire, etc. we should not have all the content in the more specific category. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There was only two supports for your proposal above, in fact you should have left it for another Admin since the scope of the proposal was changed by yourself.

Sorry but all you did was just moved the issue from one topic to another, since we now have demolished buildings (eg. Category:Red Lion Hotel, Wagga Wagga, File:Partly demolished cottage.jpg) within destroyed buildings. I'm not going to fix this mess, I'm leaving it up to the people whom created it. Bidgee (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Unbelievable. I really do urge you to read the discussion above, because you clearly have not. And I ask that you try to contribute without insulting people's work and making silly accusations. Seriously, it is possible to communicate your concerns without shitting on others. And, demolished buildings are destroyed buildings. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

WOW, so now you're resorting in insults. I've read the discussion, and again, you've applied your own proposal without getting more support from the community.Again you don't get it, you don't call a partly demolished building (for construction purposes) a partly destroyed building. Though if it was caused by fire, earthquake or a tornado, you would. I'm not fixing something that you've caused yourself. Bidgee (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

First, I don't know what "resorting in insults" means. Not sure why you feel insulted, since you are the one going around saying "I'm not going to fix this mess, I'm leaving it up to the people whom created it", because you seem to feel some need to put down people when you are concerned about what they've done. Asking you to knock it off was not an insult. Second, no one asked you to fix anything, so unclear why you keep repeating that. Third, I never made any proposal. I simply summarized what people had agreed to after two months of discussion - I think the only part that I came up with myself was the use of a DAB page. Finally, yes, a building that is half demolished is half destroyed. Demolition is simply the type of destruction. While we would normally use the word demolition rather than destroyed in some contexts, the word "destroyed" is also correct and the baseline situation has been explained below. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You told me "And I ask that you try to contribute without insulting people's work and making silly accusations" and then you said "Seriously, it is possible to communicate your concerns without shitting on others", do you see the irony? If you bothered to look at my concerns, you'll note that I was raising the fact that all you did was move the issue, rather then fixing it. Having a partly demolished house in a destroyed category is completely wrong, it wasn't destroyed by fire, earthquake, tornado or a bomb. Hang on, can you make up your mind? "Second, no one said demolished=destroyed" but above you then change your mind "While we would normally use the word demolition rather than destroyed in some contexts, the word "destroyed" is also correct and the baseline situation has been explained below". I'm not going to have files I've uploaded in an inaccurate category and the fact that you've pushed your proposal without any community notice, other then this hidden discussion. Bidgee (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is not hidden. What would constitute "community notice"? Hamblin (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Which of your files do you feel are inaccurately categorized? Are they by any chance media of demolitions in progress? Hamblin (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hamblin, I'm not sure it's worth engaging Bidgee. He is only interested in telling people how wrong they are. Until he calms down and tries to show that he understands that the others here are just as interested in the best solution possible as he is, I've just stopped reading his stuff. When he is interested in finding a solution rather than laying blame, I'm happy to discuss with him. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My good faith with you is now non-existent if you think that keeping the bigger mess you've created is ok, rather then fixing it. I've have said, "Demolished buildings" could've remained as a subcat, the main problem was with the "Former". Unlike someone here whom is doing nothing but throwing insults at me, I've taken a stab on a system to use the less then ideal solution Category:Buildings destroyed by type (type is not the ideal word but can you think of one that doesn't make it long and complex?) which would contain buildings that were destroyed by fire, tornadoes, floods, cyclones ect. Though I've come across another category (Category:Damaged buildings and Category:Fire-damaged buildings by country) that clearly should fit in this one, according to Skeezix1000. Bidgee (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Enough of the blame, Bidgee, and please just assume others are as interested as you in coming up with a solution. It's impossible to have a discussion with you when you only want to start with the premise that others are at fault. Having said that, my last comment was uncalled for, as I should never be encouraging people to ignore someone. That wasn't fair, and I apologize for that, and I ought to have worked harder at trying to discern your concern. Onto the substantive issue, then, Category:Buildings destroyed by type is what I also envisioned, and I don't think "type" is the wrong word. I wonder if that category name might, however, suggest that that it is types of buildings, rather than types of destructions, which are at issue? Would Category:Building destructions by type be better? Category:Fire-damaged buildings by country wouldn't necessarily be the same as Category:Buildings destroyed by fire, as the former could involve buildings that survived. However, you are correct that they are linked, and perhaps the latter is a subcategory of the former? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Buildings destroyed by type is a grammatical mess. I'd say Category:Destroyed buildings by means of destruction but someone else may be able to come up with something tighter. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with Category:Building destructions by type? Ideally, we should try to avoid a category name that includes two variations on the word "destroyed". Having said that, the more I look at Category:Destroyed buildings by means of destruction the more I think it isn't bad.

In terms of subcategories, I am still concerned with, and I think we still need to address the problems with the word "demolition" (and variations thereof) raised by Hamblin below. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have an overarching category for types of destruction? How about having two subcategories -- say,”Buildings destroyed by natural events” and “Buildings destroyed purposely”. Each could be further subdivided if people see a need for that. The first would have subcategories like “Buildings destroyed by storms”, “Buildings destroyed by earthquakes”, etc. The second could have “Buildings destroyed by criminal acts”, “Buildings destroyed by war”, “Buildings destroyed lawfully”, “Buildings destroyed by accident”, etc. Fire would be subsumed in the various categories I’ve already suggested, depending on whether wildfire, arson, war, or accident. Or if there is some reason to give fires a separate category, regardless of how they originated, that could be done instead. I would suggest assessing the need for all these categories, though. Let’s be sure to imagine a use someone would find for each, before multiplying categories beyond necessity. Hamblin (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Correction: In order to accommodate accidents correctly, instead of "Buildings destroyed purposely", it would have to be "Buildings destroyed by people". Hamblin (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Another thought: Instead of "Buildings destroyed lawfully," we could use the already existing Category:Demolitions (which I noted in a Comment below as not being a subject of this discussion), unless that would cause a problem elsewhere. Hamblin (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition and move all the media there from Category:Demolished buildings. It would lessen the ambiguity. Oppose Merging them comlpletely into a single category. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the content of Category:Demolished buildings includes more than just buildings destroyed by demolition. So moving it all to a precise category like Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition doesn't make a lot of sense, although such a category could (like most of our subcategories) be developed over time as people finesse the categorization of media and place it in more precise subcats. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the actual move was a little hasty, but how many months we have to wait ? Anyway, I think that the move was needed as the current categories where a mix-up, so it is probably better to start with a neat baseline that can be expanded upon. Anyway, as often with such discussions, people tend to notice it only when the categories start moving. Maybe we should investigate to execute such mass moves in stages with some intervals: top level + country level, Sublevels + deeper cats. ... But that is not necessarily easy to manage. --Foroa (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Baseline? Both categories can co-exist, common sense is all that needed to apply to them. Category:Demolished buildings could've been a sub cat of Category:Destroyed buildings or we may as well rename all the images of "buildings being demolished" to buildings being destroyed. Bidgee (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and nobody ever said Category:Demolished buildings couldn't be a subcategory. The problem was that the existing category structure was a mess, with three category trees (former buildings, demolished buildings, destroyed buildings) all covering the same subject area and simultaneously attempting to address distinct concepts. The point was to establish a clear category framework (I like Foroa's use of the term baseline), get everything in a correct category (even if it might be broad in terms of type of destruction), and in the normal Commons course nothing would stop the implementation of more precise categories for types of destruction. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite true. But, as I mentioned above, "Demolished buildings" is not more precise, because “demolish” is too close in meaning to “destroy” for the distinction to be clear to everyone, even with common sense. For example:

And categories must be useful, not only precise. Otherwise we could have "Yellow buildings," "Pointy buildings,” “Buildings near telephone poles,” “Buildings between 50 and 75 years old,” “Buildings commissioned by clients whose last names begin with the letter ‘M’,” etc. Categories exist to quickly narrow the field of a search. What search would -- in real life -- benefit from the category, “Buildings destroyed by demolition”? It’s like having a subcategory of “People” called “People who lived less than 85 years.” By contrast, an actually useful category might be "Controversial demolitions," like New York City's Pennsylvania Station. Hamblin (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, that's a good point. I do think demolition has a different and more precise meaning, but I get your point that the distinction if often lost in common usage. I also suspect that on a multilingual/global project like this, any distinction between the two words may be completely lost (even among anglophones from different parts of the world). But I do think that there must be a way on a go-forward basis to come up with wording that would allow for more precise subcategories for planned demolitions (although I can't think of that wording at this very moment -- deliberate demolition?). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"Deliberately and lawfully [to exclude war and crime] destroyed buildings". But most buildings are deliberately and lawfully destroyed; that was the point of my analogy to "People who lived less than 85 years". What purpose is served by a subcategory that narrows the parent category only slightly? Hamblin (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Re-reading Bidgee's comments, he or she seems to be interested more in the present tense (or present progressive); i.e., buildings being demolished, which is a much smaller, and, in my opinion, more sensible category. Hamblin (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Good first point. As for your second point, I honestly can't tell what Bidgee is trying to say. But I see what you are saying about the act of demolition. I would have thought that would fall under the related category tree of Category:Demolitions. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment I only became aware of this discussion when Category:Cine City, Withington was abruptly moved from Category:Demolished buildings in the United Kingdom to Category:Destroyed buildings in the United Kingdom. In this case, the building was clearly deliberately demolished, so the categorisation was correct in the first place. 'Destroyed' is a very general term, and if this move does take place then great care should be taken to ensure that categories are appropriately recategorised rather than just blanked recategorised. If there is going to be a bot move here, then perhaps a heads-up notice could be given on the talk pages of the affected categories, along with some way of opting a category out of the move if 'demolished' is already the correct category? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the whole discussion on this page? I realize it's gotten kind of long by now, but I do think it's worth taking the time. Thank you in advance. Hamblin (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask you (and everyone else) a good-natured question. Can you think of a hypothetical reason a user might have to search for buildings that don't exist any longer, but not owing to nature, accident, collapse, neglect, crime, or war; rather, owing to the ordinary and routine activity of replacing smaller/older buildings with larger/newer ones? I can't, so I don't understand the need for this category. Maybe you see something here that I'm missing? Thanks. Hamblin (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Demolition in the United Kingdom. The "s" seems to be missing by typo; should be Category:Demolitions in the United Kingdom. Hamblin (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Your files are images of a demolition in progress. Nothing in this discussion was intended to apply to those. They belong in the "Demolitions" categories -- in your case, "Demolition in the United Kingdom". We are discussing media of intact buildings which were later demolished. Hamblin (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Mike, the problem was that the categories were a mess, with the categories pertaining to demolished and former buildings applying to all sorts of different types of situations. So while categories for demolished buildings contained buildings that were demolished as part of redevelopment activities, but they were also full of images of buildings destroyed in other manners. And as seen above, there is a lot of debate as to what "demolition" even means, which likely contributed to the mess. While I agree with your statement "great care should be taken to ensure that categories are appropriately recategorised", it is already a massive task just clarifying and cleaning up the categories, let alone analyzing all of the content to try and discern the manner of destruction. In most cases, there is no explanation as to how a building ceased to be. Of course, in the normal course all of this content can be placed in more precise categories (as part of a clearer category structure). Now, as for images pertaining to the act of demolition in the construction sense, Hamblin helpfully points out that there is a separate category tree for that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Hablin and Skeezix1000 for your replies. Cleaning up the category structure makes a lot of sense, but I do worry that they shouldn't be bluntly moved without explanation. I know it's a big job, and understand bots doing the work, but perhaps talk page warnings can be left by the bot so that people watching the affected categories can help out? I'm not sure that the distinction of "intact buildings later demolished" makes sense, as I'd expect images of both the whole and demolished building to potentially be in the same category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

By "intact buildings later demolished" I meant buildings whose demolitions are not uploaded. For buildings whose demolitions are uploaded (i.e., whose demolitions are of interest, as opposed to the mere fact that they were demolished), I agree the intact building should be in the same category as the pictures of the demolition. Hamblin (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment In case anyone doesn't know, there is a separate Category:Demolitions that is not a subject of this discussion. Hamblin (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I notice that en has many "Defunct" categories such as en:Category:Defunct organizations and, closer to home, we have Category:No longer existent subjects with similar "Defunct" subcats. I like "Defunct" better than "Demolished" or any of the others, for its shortness and for its precise degree of vagueness, but my desultory participation in this discussion leaves me unqualified to do more than suggest. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"Defunct" with reference to buildings is exactly as unclear as "former": a "defunct gas station" normally refers to a still-standing building. - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ah. I don't use it that way, but perhaps I'm the odd one. I'll go back to my usual activities and hope you folks can work out a clear, unambiguous nomenclature, and perhaps not too verbose. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  - "Lawfully destroyed buildings" is better than "Buildings destroyed by demolition". Don't you agree? Hamblin (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    - Sometimes buildings are demolished unlawfully, or the legal status of the demolition is disputed or unclear. Peter James (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
      - Can you give some examples of what you have in mind? Hamblin (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
        
        I can think of a few times I've heard of the owner of a building in the U.S. deliberately demolishing it without appropriate permits to create a "fact on the ground" in terms of wanting to build a new building on the site. I gather that there are a number of other countries where this is more common, including cases where the party responsible for the demolition may not even have had entirely clear ownership. I don't have a citation offhand, though. - Jmabel ! talk 04:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
        
        So you'd prefer "Buildings destroyed by demolition", then? Hamblin (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Badges of the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr)[edit]

IMO should all files in this category get migrated to Category:Coats of arms of the Bundeswehr (to its sub categories) with the real (in this case german) names of the units, to avoid double categoriesation and keep all files at one directory. Flor!an (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Das köönen wir glaub ich auf Deutsch machen. Ich bin auch deiner Meinung, weil ich's verwirrend finde, dass es hier parallele Kategoriensysteme gibt und die Praxis zeigt, dass die Ordnung anhand der Namen der Truppenteile ziemlich gut funktioniert, allerdings kann ich mal für Steinbeisser sprechen - er wird sich sicher aber auch selbst äußern: Er benutzt diese Kategorie, um nur qualitativ befriedigende Photos echter Brustanhänger zu sortieren. Er registriert hier weder gezeichnete IVA noch Ärmelabzeichen. Soviel zum Hintergrund. Mehr sage ich dazu aber nicht, weil ich das schon (zu) häufig mit Steinbeisser diskutiert habe. Bisher hat er sich durch mich nicht von dieser Kat. abbringen lassen.--TUBS 16:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Grundsätzlich habe ich nicht gegen die Kategorie, ich finde es sogar gut eine eigene für Brustabhänger-Fotos zu haben, aber ich finde es schwierig, wenn man für eine Einheit ein Wappen sucht in zwei verschiedenen Kategorien suchen muss. Man könnte sich zwar darauf einigen, dass neue Dateien immer in beide eingetragen werden, doch glaub ich das das sehr sehr schwierig ist durchzusetzen. Besonders wenn jemand eine neue Datei hochläd der mit dem System nicht so vertraut ist. Zudem ist es schwierig durch die "krampfhaften" Übersetzungen (die durchaus korrekt sind) die richtigen Verbände zu finden.--Flor!an (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Mein Reden. Manchmal setz ich den AutoWikiBrowser drauf an und kopiere die Dateien in "mein" Kategoriensystem rüber, damit dort zumindest alle (unabhängig von Qualität, Zeichnung oder Photo, Textil oder Brustanhänger) zu finden sind. Das ist aber auch recht aufwendig.--TUBS 22:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Tubs spricht die Qualität an und das ist der Knackpunkt. Es gibt hier Abzeichen, die sind vier oder fünfmal nebeneinander in GIF, In JPG und in PNG vertreten, wobei manche von so schlechter Qualität sind, daß man sich schon fast schämt. Versuche den Mist zu löschen, scheitern an allmächtigen admins, die einfach behaupten, das sei kein Löschgrund und den Löschantrag eliminieren. Des weiteren gibt es zwischen “badges” also den Brusttaschenanhängern und “coat of arms” unter Umständen schon einen Unterschied - ein Wappen nämlich kann auch das auf eine Blechtafel gemalte und fotografierte Erzeugnis neben dem Eingang zum Bataillonsgebäude sein, oder aber der Wappenteller über dem Tresen in der UHG! -- Steinbeisser (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ich verstehe deine Idee, doch ob dieses alle verstehen ist fragwürdig ... es gibt ja keinen "Schutz", das genau hier (also Badges/gute Quali) keine "falschen/schlechten" reinkommen. Ich hätte nur gerne, dass unter "coat of arms" wirklich alle (alle Einheiten) liegen und meinentwegen wenige, von hand ausgewählte, gerne auch hier. Doch nur wie umgeht man es, dass hier welche reingelegt werden können die nicht unter "coat of arms" liegen? Vielleicht diese hier "verstecken"? ... --Flor!an (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Die meisten sind eh bei Tubs bereits untergebracht, da macht man dann halt zwei Kategorien bei jedes file. Und was reinkommen von falschen/schlechten bertifft: Da schaun mer dann amal -- Steinbeisser (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm naja geht so ich hab gestern mal ein paar (gefühlt tausende) zu der "coat of arms" fraktion hinzugefügt siehe: [7] (bisschen runterscrollen) und ich denk mal das es bei weitem nicht alle waren... --Flor!an (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wenn Du mal genau hinschaust, wirst Du merken, da´die meisten jetzt da doppelt vorhanden sind. Lediglich der Hintergrund unterscheidet sich (grau bzw. schwarz) that's all -- Steinbeisser (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Orissa[edit]

The categories should be moved to Category:Odisha per COMMONNAME. In English Wikipedia, the article was moved to Odisha per discussion at Talk:Odisha, and subsequently categories were moved to Odisha as well. All sub-categories under the main should be moved to Category:Odisha. --Amartyabag (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Support: Per the article on en.wiki and [8] etc. "Orissa" categories can become redirects because it is historically and will be known commonly this way for years to come --moogsi (blah) 02:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Commons mantenimiento[edit]

Para coordinar el árbol definido y/a clasificar. chacaM ChacaM (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Commons namespace templates[edit]

Commons namespace Ciluxo (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Computer brands[edit]

Dupe of Category:Computer hardware by manufacturer? --Flominator (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Nearly, there are 3 types of category to get confused here:

Manufacturers
Brands
Computer hardware

1 and 2 are distinct, e.g. Vaio doesn't make laptops, but the problem is that Commodore International did make computers branded "Commodore". This has confused the issue enough for the category of the manufacturer Category:Commodore International to end up in Category:Computer hardware by manufacturer, when it is actually Category:Commodore computers which should be there.

Same but slightly worse: Category:Acorn Computers is actually the name of the manufacturer of the brand Acorn. Category:Acorn computers (or Category:Acorn Computers computers :) is what actually belongs in a category with Category:Acer computers, Category:Hewlett-Packard computers, etc. Of course no-one has made this category to describe Acorn computer hardware, because it has an unavoidably silly name. Unless you think Category:Acorn Computers hardware is ok instead. It just needs some cleaning up I think --moogsi (blah) 11:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Trams in Prague[edit]

Every tram in Prague has it's own category based on its fleet number, this means that the category for the Category:Škoda 15T in Prague just has a list of trams with the photos in there, many only have one picture. The same is true for almost all Category:Trams in Prague subcategories, it actually makes it really hard to find pictures, as you have to look through dozens if not hundreds of different categories. All of these individual fleet categories are then together in one mega category Category:Trams in Prague by registration number - which has 1,048 categories listed (one for each Prague tram), most with only one or two files or no files and just more categories. Is this really necessary? Can we move all photos of trams into the category of model, and not have them all sorted by fleet number? Liamdavies (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This is something that should be done by intersecting categories. But I think that Commons has no such extension. Sinnamon (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Pardon? Liamdavies (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I will try to explain. There is an "intersection" extension out there for MW software, it allows a person to say something like "find all images in category 'Trams in Prague' and 'Skoda 15T trams'" and to display such as a category. This would make categorisation (you only categorise once per a specific thing, and would allow people to find files that are as specific or as general as they wish. I hope it's a little clearer now. Sinnamon (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CategoryIntersection Sinnamon (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but with the lack of that extension what do we do? Is it acceptable that we have 1,048 categories - one for each tram vehicle in Prague? I would think it much better and easier to have all tram vehicles of the same type to be in one category, the current situation is hugely unwieldy and makes it really really hard to look for photos for articles. Is there a policy or convention on this? Liamdavies (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not as knowledgeable as to know if there's a policy about that. But it does seem that, although with good intentions, somebody has gone overboard with categorisation. If there's only a single photo of each tram type, then it'd be much easier to simply put the type in the description of the image, and let the person to find that tram using Special:Search. But that is just my opinion. Sinnamon (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I want to do, I want to put all pictures of one type/model/class into just one category (ie all pictures of 15Ts in Prague in Category:Škoda 15T in Prague), but I would like consensus or a policy to back me up. The user who categorised them all seems to be quite quick to move and I'd rather not do a lot of work and then have it all reverted. Also, it's not type, it just the actual vehicle number, there is no difference between any of the trams in Category:Škoda 15T in Prague except the number (maybe a few differences with the first couple, but the rest should be the same). It would be like categorising all cars in Category:Police automobiles in Australia by registration plate, it just makes it difficult to find pictures for articles. Liamdavies (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I understand your reasons against this detailed categorization. However, you maybe undervalue the advantages and benefits.

When you argue that "many only have one picture", you should not neglect the "many have several or tens of pictures" and "just every vehicle have its own photo". That time that most of individual vehicles have their own photo on Commons, there is the right time to create corresponding subcategories.
The old Ringhoffer trams have no official type names, the fleet numbers are an useful instrument to systematize the photos.
Some types of trams were manufactured through tens of years - although it is identic type, many details were successively changed (T3 from 1960s is a bitt different than T3 from late 1970s) and the fleet number sequence is a good way how to reflect it.
Many photographs (even from transport fans) are not familiar with knowledge of tram types and subtypes. However, everybody of them should be able to categorize a tram by its sheet number, thereby indirectly assigns the tram to its type.
Individual tram vehicles are not so anonymous and identical as you believe. Above all, advertisement coats and plasters make the vehicles very distinctive. Some vehicles are specific as prototypes, modified pieces, many pieces have almost 50 years of their unique history, endured reconstructions and modifications, accidents, transfers from one depot to another etc. etc. Detailed categorization enables to group or list individual vehicles by their subseries, common attributes, identic history etc. and allows to connect the pre-reconstruction identity with the post-reconstruction identity of individual trams.

I would be not in a hurry to apply this system on buses (which have substantially shorter lifetime period) but I think, this categorization of trams is very usefull and adequate to the current (and future) quantity of uploaded photos. The modular system of categorization is optimalized for detailed systematic classification. You can compenzate its disadvantages by gallery pages, paralel categorization by view (see Views of vehicles) or wait for new functionalities for more comfortable browsing of subcategories. --ŠJů (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I understand why it's been done, but I don't think commons is suited for that level of categorisation. What you're talking about is far more suited to a database (all Melbourne trams are in a database called vicsig it's very good, but it's also much easier to use, and easily searchable). I am very versed in the differences and anomalies in different vehicles, please do not be mistaken on that. But... aside from the first 2 prototype 15Ts, they are the essentially the same tram with different numbers. The other differences you speak of could be dealt with through a simpler category system, all T3s should still remain in subclass categories, and AOA trams could be placed into a separate category too.

There are many useless categories, for example, why does this exist; Category:Tram_6138_(Prague)? Why can these two pictures; File:Pivni tramway.jpg & File:Nádraží Hostivař, 6815+6909.jpg not just be in the same category, ie Category:Tatra T3 in Prague - the second picture is the only picture in two categories; Category:Tram 6815 (Prague) & Category:Tram 6909 (Prague).

A much better way of sorting them would be to include the numbers into the description and/or file name so that they can be located through a search, or in the case of the file name, show up in order. I have never seen such a fragmented and convoluted system, categories are to sort and make files easy to find, not to hide and obscure the contents of commons. For example, on the first page of Category:Tatra T3 in Prague only 19 out of 200 categories actually contain a photo, the rest just contain more categories, it's a maze. Can someone more versed on category policy please weight in on this? Liamdavies (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've run Category:Trams in Prague through CatScan V2.0β and it found 3184 objects (pages, categories and files) and searched 1133 categories, this means that there are 1133 categories within Category:Trams in Prague to sort only 2051 pages and files, surely this can be consolidated down to about many fewer categories. Liamdavies (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've thought of a solution. We can convert all of the "Tram xxxx (Prague)" categories to hiddencats, so that one can still click a link and show all photos of an individual tram, and then ad the broader category ie Category:Tatra T3 in Prague, so images will also populate that category, and lower dramatically the amount of categories visibly nested in Category:Trams in Prague. Ideas? Liamdavies (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think, Commons should categorize on all relevant levels, not only on the higher ones. The adequate level depends (besides other) on amount of the uploaded photos (files) and subcategories. I think, more than 2000 photos are enough to be categorized thoroughly. Categories should sort the content systematically, not group hundreds of photos to one big dump. Categorization system of wiki projects is primarily modular, not by tags or keywords. Even if some pieces have only one or two photos still, there is useful to enable to find them (and to group the two photos together) - and moreover, many pieces have more photos.

I see no reason in converting these categories to hiddencats. They are standard item categories - just as categories of individual buildings, villages, people etc. They should be visible, properly categorized and not separated. "Hidden" mark would solve absolutely nothing. Category of an individual vehicle must be certainly visible and foundable in the category of the corresponding type, so the amout of subcategories would not drop by such action. If we want some "summary" view, we can wait for some tool to effective browsing of subcategories or create some paralel category branch (trams by view etc.) or overview galleries but we should not destroy or paralyse the current detailed categorization by number.

You are right that pieces of the newest types (Škoda 14T, Škoda 15T) have very short specific history (and only several of them have or had a specific advertisement coat or some specific equipment like WiFi), but it would be not desirable to differ categorizing standards for every type of tram. Btw, the type name is not so good visible on the vehicles as the fleet number, thus the number is more practical for the basic level of categorization. The simple unified system is very friendly for who is searching or uploading a photo of a real vehicle.

Category:Tram_6138_(Prague) is obviously not an useless category. It is not empty but it contain one subcategory, which means that we have no photo of this tram before the reconstruction and renumbering yet, but we have some its photos past the reconstruction. Do you cannot see the subcategory, or don't understand the effort to associate the older and the newer photos of identic piece? We would make great thanks to the creators of that precise categorization.

The files File:Pivni tramway.jpg & File:Nádraží Hostivař, 6815+6909.jpg are categorized by the visible trams and the trams are categorized by type. It implies from the basic principle of categorization: „Generally files should only be in the most specific category that exists for certain topic.“ Similarly, if we have a specific category for some king or president, the photos from such category are not categorized directly into the parent categories like "Kings of..." or "Presidents of..." I agree that modular categorization can be uncomfortable for some kinds of usage but it was chosen as the basic principle and have also many big advantages. --ŠJů (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I get the idea that we are going to go round in circles, and that you very much like the current category scheme, and will oppose any changes at all. Is this a correct assumption? Liamdavies (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I mean this is wrong way. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia, not the list of vehicles. Individual vehicles should man find on special pages. Wikipedia should bring encyclopedial information and it is surely not the picture of each vehicle of some type from the same angle. Try to find view on the roof of 14T! Next reason is that rules should be commonly applicable. One user has a collection of photos of about 1.000 different wagons ČSD Class Uacs. Should he place them here?--PetrS. (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This is Commons not Wikipedia. Over here we accumulate media suitable for use on Wikipedia and its sister sites. It's not unusual to have more pictures to illustrate a topic than are actually needed. As such, I'm OK with the lowest level vehicle categories. What's really needed are some nice galleries showing off the pictures we have. Is there a script which will seed these galleries with the media we have? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

@Liamdavies. You force me to go round in circles again.

I didn't enforce nor create this system (except for some historic pieces) but I understand and respect it (its benefits were explained above). I consider as unacceptable to destroy this big work and to pour hundreds of images back together into big mixed dumps. However, I would be not in a hurry for mass application of this system on buses, metro and railway rolling stock etc. (except for important or specific pieces).
I understand and share our troubles with modular categorization but the solution is to create some tool for effective browsing of subcategories or create some paralel category branch (trams by view, details of trams by type - e. g. "Roofs of Tatra T14" - etc.) or overview galleries. I'm ready to support such constructive changes, but not any destructive changes. --ŠJů (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Support upmerge per nom. commons should not be used as a database system for image classification at this level of detail. 1000 categories to sort 2000 images is excessive. Use of better naming schemes would be preferred - I support simplifying the category split.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose removing current category tree.

Support creating a parallel one. Commons definitely should be used to provide educational media, which is categorised to the detail that is required for the use. The problem is that there are two different uses: 1) A person searching for any good picture of a tram, 2) An individual looking for a very specific image. Current system already helps the second, but makes it almost impossible to work for the first. Category intersection or "category with all subcategories" view would resolve this problem, however, currently the only way forward does seem to be two (or more) different category trees, with images residing in both. Sinnamon (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing we seem to be getting close to consensus here. I think we currently have three choices: do nothing, move all files to tram model category, or have a system of parallel categerising systems. I feel that as others have said, the commons is meant to be about educational value, and no such value is found in the current system (or the categorising by number system for that matter), but would like to propose a middle ground possibility that I hope is most palatable for all.

What I suggest is that we move Category:Trams in Prague by registration number from Category:Trams in Prague to Category:Tram transport in Prague, we would now have two categorisation systems sitting side by side. First: Category:Trams in Prague which would have pretty much all the current categories, but they would be populated by pictures of that model of tram, I imagine it would look like this: (an indent signifies a level of nesting categories)

Category:Trams in Prague

Category:Tatra T3 in Prague -> Full of pictures of Tatra T3s in Prague

Category:Tatra T3 driving school trams in Prague -> Full of pictures of Tatra T3 driving school trams in Prague

Category:Tatra T3 service trams in Prague -> Full of pictures of Tatra T3 service trams in Prague

Category:Tatra T3G in Prague -> Full of pictures of Tatra T3Gs in Prague

Category:Tatra T3M in Prague -> Full of pictures of Tatra T3Ms in Prague
(and so on for all tram models, treating sub classes separate and not nested)

And a second category Category:Trams in Prague by registration number -> populated as it is But... text would be added to the top of the page, indicating what number range each tram type belongs to, with a link to Trams in Prague by registration number. What I'm thinking could be added to the top would be something along the lines of this:

This category has all trams in Prague listed by fleet number. Their model type and number range have been listed below. For more information please see: Trams in Prague by registration number

Tatra T3 numbers: 6092 - 6992 (many of these vehicles have been rebuilt as Tatra T3M)

Tatra T3SU numbers: 7001 - 7020 (originally built for the Soviet Union)

Tatra T3SUCS numbers: 7021 - 7292 (originally built for the Soviet Union - some have been rebuilt as Tatra T3R PLF)

Tatra T3M numbers: 8005 - 8106 (rebuilt from Tatra T3)

Tatra T3R.PV numbers: 8151 - 8185

Tatra T3R.P numbers: 8211 - 8579

etc etc.

It would mean that all pictures of a type/class/model of tram are in one folder, while preserving and adding to the interpretation of the categorisation by number scheme. I would also like to add that the page Trams in Prague by registration number conveys all the information the current category system does, but is much more accessible, easier to understand, and navigate than a nest of categories we currently have. What are peoples thoughts on this? Liamdavies (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

At first I would like to thanks ŠJů, that he send me a notice with link to this discussion. I have no idea, why creator of this discussion didn't do this, but it looks really impolite for me…

I think, that system of categorization which uses registration numbers, is really useful, because there are many differences between trams in each type and this category tree is only possible way, how to find pictures of tram, which you want. For example special door opening systems in some T3SUCS or T3M, air conditions, three types of doors or another orientation system and outside displays in some 15T trams. Another reason are trams with advertisements etc.

I fully understand, that it is necessary to have a category with images usable into articles; because of this I created Category:Quality images of trams in Prague and Trams in Prague, where you can find best images…

If someone thinks, that it is really necessary to have category with all trams of one type, I think, that best idea is leave todays tree and create category like Category:Tatras T3M in Prague and put all pictures of T3M into this category (or add to all images Category:Tatra T3M in Prague).

But as was written above by ŠJů, categorization tree by registration numbers have much reasons and it is useful. I can understand that someone, who is not into trams this looks like mess and plenty of useless categories, but in fact mess is one category with 800 pictures of Tatra T3R.P.

So best idea is leave todays tree and built parallel categorization if someone thinks, that it is more useful than one category and gallery with pictures, which is possible use in articles. — Jagro (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Jagro, I meant no offense to you, I just did was I was instructed with the template on who to inform and how. I will however start by saying that I understand trams very well and am very knowledgeable on the subject. Regarding your points: 1) The pages you list contain only 107 images out of over 2000, not good enough. 2) The searching you highlight is not possible, there is no sorting by door count, AC, or anything other than model type/subtype and vehicle number, both of these can be addressed by a single list. 3) You are greatly exaggerating the amount of pictures that would be in the category you used as an example, there would be less than half the number you give (some where around 390, which is only a couple of pages, quite manageable) and you're favoured system of over categarisation would still be around, every tram would still be in a cat by number. Every tram would be findable by number, but all photos would be grouped by model or concept (interior etc) rather than by number, finding pictures would be easier. The reason the number cats have to be removed from model cats is for policy: COM:OVERCAT forbids it. Liamdavies (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Liamdavies, I try to understand your proposals. I'm not sure that I understand all your thoughts but the main of them show that you didn't comprehend some of the most basic principles of categorization. That's not a good ground for our discussions about our dilemmas.

You suggested to move Trams in Prague by registration number from Trams in Prague to Category:Tram transport in Prague. Did you really not comprehend the relation between these two categories yet? Category:Tram transport in Prague is the parent category covering all aspect of tram transport in Prague (trams, infrastructure, organization, staff, service vehicles etc.) and Trams in Prague is a specific subcategory for tram vehicles. Trams in Prague by registration number is apparently a category of tram vehicles and that's why it appertains certainly into Trams in Prague as its meta-subcategory. This your proposal is totally nonsensical.

Your draft of category scheme is a bit incomprehensible for me. What should mean "Category:Tatra T3 in Prague -> Full of pictures of Tatra T3s in Prague"? Are you proposing a renaming of the categories from standard simple names to more complicated ones? Are you trying to explain that Category:Tatra T3 in Prague should not include subcategories of Tatra T3 trams in Prague? Are you proposing that categories of Tatra T3 subtypes shouldn't be subcategories of the Tatra T3 category? I strongly oppose all three these proposals because they violate standard principles of categorization.

As I can see, you utterly didn't understand what is called "over-categorization". Over-categorization is not a term for too detailed categorization. The fact that some categories contain only one file or one subcategory doesn't base overcategorization. Over-categorization is a term for one kind of violation of modularity principle of categorization. Regrettably, just such overcategorization is proposed by you. If any image of tram is put into the category of this vehicle, the category of the vehicle have to be also properly categorized (by type etc.). When you categorize the image also directly by type, you are commiting exemplary overcategorization. If you are proposing to remove all categories of indivudial vehicles from the category of their type, such change would be a next flagrant violation of categorization principles and a nonsensical break of category structure. If we would implement this your proposal, the categories of individual vehicles would lose most of their sense and usefulness and the categorization of tram vehicles would become chaotic and unmaintainable (some of images would be categorized only by one way, some only by the second way). Strict application of modularity principle should prevent such chaos. The current system of categorization by fleet number is very simple, friendly and helpful even for easy maintenance.

Your proposal to add the explanation of number series by type at the top of category page(s) is reasonable and such overview can be helpful especially for any uploader/editor when he is creating a new category of individual vehicle and want to categorize it properly. However, such description have no impact to the category structure. A possible way how to make the categorization even more simply would be to remove the overview category Trams in Prague by registration number and to categorize the categories of individual vehicles only by type (a number would be searchable using this overview description) – however, IMHO also this category is useful and should be kept.

Jagro, your proposal to create Category:Tatras T3M in Prague (as a subcategory of Category:Tatra T3M in Prague?) is very nonstandard and such category name is not just clear. All categories of vehicles by type are intended for images of vehicles of the corresponding type but we use not plural of the brand name. The two category names proposed by you don't express the distinction you want to reach. This proposal is not a suitable way how to compensate (trick) disadvantages of modularity principle of categorization. The modularity is not a specific problem of trams but it concerns whatever item. If we have hundreds of photos from any town, uncategorized view of them is better for some usages, and detailed categorization structure by street, building or season is better for another usages. We should not solve this dilemma by overcategorization as you want to do. As was said above many times, the usable solutions are:

to create "category with all subcategories" view as a systematic software solution. I think, such functionality is urgently required for all types of categories (not only trams).
to create desired subcategories by view or by part (Interiors of Tatra T3, Headlamps of Škoda 14T, Doors of Tatra T3, Front views of Tatra KT8D5 etc.) - some of such categories rather at the worldwide level rather than at the Prague level. --ŠJů (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

ŠJů, stop telling me I don't understand, or don't know. It's insulting and patronising. There is a huge difference between understanding and agreeing. I understand why you want it I just don't agree. But despite that, I am trying to think of ways to make your system work, I don't feel the same can be said of you. You are not giving helpful ideas, just rubbishing others and bringing up off topic ideas, like a category of tram roofs (which I haven't asked for and don't want). I understand COM:OVERCAT, you just didn't understand what I meant(I could have said it better, sorry). We can't have all photos of Tatra T3s in Category:Tatra T3 in Prague AND have all of the Category:Tram XXXX (Prague) categories in there as well, that is against COM:OVERCAT.

When I say "Category:Tatra T3 in Prague -> Full of pictures of Tatra T3s in Prague" I mean that the category named "Category:Tatra T3 in Prague" would be full of pictures of Tatra T3s (but NOT subclasses) and so on.

I would like you to answer this one question (yes or no please), would you be ok with a category that has all the photos of a certain type of tram in it, for example a category that has all the photos of Prague Tatra T3s in it? This is what I and others want, a category of tram roofs is not what I want, or what I think is proper, that's not to say you can't do that, I don't mind, but what I want is ONE place that contains ALL the photos of a certain type of tram. If you oppose this (and just oppose this, other category issues can be sorted out later) please state why, also please be concise, you don't need to insult me or write 1000 words, just one paragraph outlining your problems would be sufficient. If we can get some level of agreement on this one simple issue, then we can work out how to make that happen, if you don't agree I feel we are not going to reach a conclusion and will bring this up at Commons:Dispute resolution and seek outside mediation. Liamdavies (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Liamdavies, the principles that

1) a subitem have to be a subcategory of the higher item

2) a file or category should be properly categorized into the most specific categories that fits them

3) categories are defined by item and contain both files and categories which appertain to the item

are bacis principles of wiki categorization of Commons. It is not some "my" system but system of Commons. Staying on these principles should not be called "insulting" or "patronising". Implementation of your proposals would severely disturb standard logic of categorization. I understand that the modular system of categorization have its disadvantages. However, it's not a sufficient reason to break, violate and ignore the system. I understand that the detailed categorization of trams is not only useful but also complicating for some kinds of usage. Such categorization is maybe too detailed but not incorrect nor nonsensical, unlike your proposals. I'm convinced that advantages of systematic detailed categorization of hundreds photos of Prague trams are not negligible and disadvantages are not so grave and eccentric that would be a reason for destruction and depreciation of this big work. If some vehicle have its own category, then the category have to by properly categorized by type of vehicle and all the inclused photos must not be categorized directly by type, because they are categorized through the category of the vehicle and the direct categorization would be exemplary overcategorization. I'm conscious that such overcategorization (to pour photos from all subcategories to one big unstructured group) is attractive and invited for you (and maybe, sometimes also for me) but such solution is fundamentally incompatible with categorization principles which prefer structured content and refuse overcategorization. (ONE place really should contain ALL the photos and subcategories of a certain type of tram, but it doesn't mean that the photos shouldn't be in appropriate subcategories.) Your desire should be fulfil rather by some software tool which would enable to browse subcategories in such way. If you would understand the above written arguments promptly, we must not to repeat them in circles in 1000s words. --ŠJů (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This is a problem that we encounter often and that is not fully recognised. Basically, technical people want the most precise and deep categorisation as possible. Many other people just want big categories as to be able to do visual search. While tools like catscan (tab) can help, it is still not always very practical. And indeed, the more specialised the categories are getting, the more problems one has with "tourist" users that probably need hours to find out in what categories their "tram image" need to be categorised correctly and completely (there is hopefully only one single tram operator, so it could be worse ;). We've got very long discussions on that in Category:Churches in Belgium, and in many other heavily populated categories. The problem often gets worse because of COM:OVERCAT fundamentalists. So far, the best compromise we could come up with is:

Keep the main category just for all (visually appealing) images, so all people can categorise and find them without any structural and specialist knowledge.
Put the specialists category aside by grouping them in "item by xxx" categories.

This is not perfect as you don't necessarily want on the top level technical details of components or interiors, but as stated, it is a compromise. In the past, we have already discussed ideas to be able to tag some images as most representative/best/postcard type/... and to allow category displays to filter on that, but software development on wikipedia seems to be halted since years, at least on Commons. Note that we have very often a similar problem to create long flat lists (people by name, ships/aircraft by registration number, ...), but this is easier to solve with "xxx by yyy" categories. Alternatively, one could think of a category called "trams running in Prague operated by xxx operator", as to avoid overcat fundamentalists. --Foroa (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Place each image into both <tramnumber> in Prague and < big cat > trams in Prague, even though one is a subcat of the other. Ignore WP:OVERCAT where it is interpreted that no item should ever be included in a transitive supercategory. The reason is that each category here has a different use case: < big cat > is something like the tram model type, route or location (useful to many groups), whilst <tramnumber> is for tram-spotting individuals. Not my interest, not something I'd put interest into categorising (for mundane trams at least), but nor should I dismantle someone else's work in building such a category tree.

As noted at the top, MW has many extensions such as DPL for making categories more powerful. However they won't be happening on WMF projects for good performance reasons. Sadly there's also a problem at WP especially, where categories are neither understood, nor used well. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I think you're both thinking a little to broadly, having all photos of all trams in Prague in one category would be unusably big, and finding good images would be just as hard as know due to information overload, Category:Churches in Belgium looks a little to broad for what I want. There would be 12 pages of images! I want one place where all photos of just one tram type are located, so I want all 140 images of Prague 15Ts to be in the category Category:Škoda 15T in Prague. I don't care one way or another if they are also categorised by fleet number, the reason I wanted to upmerge was to avoid COM:OVERCAT, that is the same reason I have proposed to move the fleet number categorisation system to another tree. But everything I have said has been slammed, I don't feel that ŠJů wants to discuss anyone of having all the photos of all the same type of tram in one place. If people think it is ok to COM:OVERCAT to make the images viewable in both cats I'm fine with that. Is there a way we can get BOTS to do this work? Or must it be done manually? I'd also like to add that cat scan seems quite broken for displaying images, only a hand full show up. Liamdavies (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Foroa, the systematic overcategorization proposed by you is not a compromise but disabling and devaluation of the current system. One of its main functions is that every vehicle can be simply and infallibly categorized by type through the fleet number. Such categorization of images is very easily usable also for non-experts. Duplication and shattering of the category structure would bring only chaos - some images would be categorized only by the first system, some images only by the second one, as is typical for disorganized duplicite categorization. That's why the categorization should be modular and overcategorization is generally disapproved. I'm not a COM:OVERCAT fundamentalist – in some cases overcategorization is useful and harmless, but this is evidently not such case. I absolutely understand that overcategorization can be attractive and tempting for many users in many cases but this knowledge we have had even when the rule against overcategorization became received. Modular categorization is a bit uncomfortable for some types of usage but chaos is not an acceptable alternative. If the detailed categorization by fleet number would be completely meaningless and purposeless, I would also support to destroy and remove this level, but this is not such a case. --ŠJů (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You obviously did not read what I wrote; it remains a fact that categorisation tends to go deeper and deeper, thereby hindering and rendering it sometimes useless for the generalists' needs, especially in regards with visual search. What this discussion has shown as well, is that no matter what solutions we will try to find, it will never cover the needs of all users. Obviously, we need more dynamic tools. For me, Catscan works like a charm (if all toolservers are running correctly), when it can stay below 1000 images (an old restriction for systems 10 years ago). --Foroa (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

As ŠJů notes, cat by tramnumber is useful because it's often clear (although not for most photos taken some time ago, as these numbers aren't always obvious) it's certainly unambiguous and it also has a strong implication for model number. So the Škoda 15T in Prague category begins to approach being a meta-cat. However it would still do nothing for trams by location, or even by route. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. If I may make some suggestions: Put the unidentified trams (no fleet number) in a higher category. No need to have "unidentified" categories. I also have problems with tram stop categories, wich are useless without local knowledge. A handy category would be by tramline number wich are more easily researched (trammaps etc). Examples: (Basel tram line 10, Basel tram line 8). But please dont make it a list of tram stop categories. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

For purposes of maintenance, there is useful to distinguish images which were checked but are not simply indentifiable and images of trams which can be simply identifiable but were not sorted in depth yet (or have not their own subcategory yet). I think, such conception of categories of unidentified subjects is standardly used in case of geographical categories, bionomic categories, categories of vehicles etc. and is proven and very useful. "Unidentified" (in the category name) means "checked but the identification was not succesfull yet", "not simply identifiable".

Categories of tram lines would be also possible (for the future) but i think, Prague tram lines have not so distinctive specific identity to be urgent to create their categories. However, its possible for the future. The individual vehicles are more tied to their depot than to the line (but also the category "Trams in Prague by depot" would be not useful enough to be needed).

As regards Prague tram stop categories, they should be categorized also by street name & tram track section and the streets and tram track sections should be categorized by Prague district etc. Tram lines in Prague are often changed and are not so stable to be used as a skeleton of tram stop categorization. I think, Category:Tram tracks in Prague is a good base for localization of tram-related images and I feel no need of split their content to with-trams/without-trams subcategories. For the future, we can use some stop lists with links like here in railway track category or create some interactive map as a navbox. --ŠJů (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cement plants & Category:Cement works[edit]

I don't think there is any difference between Category:Cement plants and the larger Category:Cement works. I don't care which way the merger goes, but they should be merged. Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Support: Not that it's authoritative, but Google seems to think they are synonyms: Google cement works and you get results for both. Merge into "works" cos it already has a "by country" subcat --moogsi (blah) 21:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - if there's any difference between "cement plant", "cement works", and "cement factory", it wasn't reflected in the categories as they were --moogsi (blah) 12:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Reopened. Disagree. As far as I understood it (long time ago, cement plants was to manufacture cement (powder), cement works was to manufacturer things with cement. --Foroa (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a concrete.. making... place. There is a red truck. Terminology.

Sorry, I was waaaay too quick with this one, thanks for undoing it.

So it's LIMESTONE → sinter in a kiln → CLINKER → grind with gypsum → CEMENT. Whatever the place where all that is done is called, you can then put the cement into a concrete plant to make concrete. This is more of a single large machine, contrary to the more common meaning of the word "plant" as a whole factory. I think the only place you would take cement to be made into something else is a concrete factory/works where you would put it in a concrete plant... anyway I'll leave this open much longer this time :) --moogsi (blah) 13:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If someone can make a clear distinction, put explanations on the categories that clarify the distinction, and sort the existing images accordingly, fine. But as far as I can tell, the two categories were being used interchangeably. - 01:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Support merge to Cement works - cement works and cement plants and cement factories as terms all seem to be used for production of cement and production of items from cement (e.g bricks, pre-cast structures, etc). I don't think there is any value in separating these out. Since there isnt' consistency in real-world usage of these terms, we don't need to make an artificial distinction here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Need a clear definition and proper split-up. Many so called "cement works" are basically concrete plants, there might be an isolation between cement (limestone, ...) quarries and the actuel processing into cement. --Foroa (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If it was possible, this would be a good idea - but in practice, since we're talking about global usage, there isn't consistency, so we can't impose such consistency in a category structure. Obviously creation of cement is a complex process but I don't think we need to create a complex category structure to capture every aspect of that process - especially given that the outside world does not distinguish in a clear or regular fashion between cement plants, cement factories, and cement works. If you can find evidence to the contrary, or any indication of some industry standard designation (e.g. a cement plant does this, a cement works does that), please provide it - I wasn't able to find. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, if there are any "true" definitions of the terms, then they should be defined at the category pages. Certainly no-one is quarrying cement so we can rule that out; wherever does the sintering and grinding is where the cement is made.

I was going to suggest that "Cement plants" have a see-also to Category:Concrete plants, but that is full of concrete factories, rather than the more specific usage which I don't think it contradicts. It's not helped by the fact that when it comes to a substance, "plant", "factory" and "works" mean the same thing. E.g. a steelworks makes steel, it doesn't make steel into something else. There is also nothing stopping cement and concrete being made at the same facility, which might be a concrete factory? Is it also a cement factory? Will people know or care? --moogsi (blah) 12:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I created cement works categories and moved some of it properly. --Foroa (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Healthcare in Armenia[edit]

Merge or rename to Category:Health in Armenia, and "Healthcare in Country X" to "Health in Country X" for all other countries.

I did a test nomination of Category:Healthcare in Afghanistan and it closed without any dispute. I am thus now nominating the rest of these duplicate categories, which aligns with similar discussions that happened last year and ended with the removal of the vast majority of "Healthcare in Country X" categories in english wikipedia.

The separation between health and healthcare at the country level is no longer used in en.wikipedia categories. I think the same logic applies to commons categories. In addition, if you peruse them, they are just as likely to have pictures of hospitals in the 'health' category as in the 'healthcare' category. For example:

Category:Health in Germany, Category:Healthcare in Germany; - both contain images of buildings and healthcare services
Category:Health in Indonesia, Category:Healthcare in Indonesia - both contain images of health and healthcare; leprosy is listed under health, but images of lepers are found under healthcare
Category:Healthcare in the United Kingdom, Category:Health in the United Kingdom; both contain images of hospitals and other buildings of care; however NHS (which is the major provider of healthcare services) is under 'Health' and not 'Healthcare'
Category:Health in the United States, Category:Healthcare in the United States: health cat has a number of images of healthcare; healthcare cat has images of health statistics;
Category:Health in Uganda, Category:Health in Venezuela, Category:Health in Côte d'Ivoire - none of these cats even have a healthcare subcat. There are also countries that have healthcare category, but no health category. Note that the Israel category is the best example of the final outcome that I am proposing. Take a look at it and ask yourself, do I need this further subdivided into 'healthcare' and 'everything else'? Is it bothersome that a swine-flu outbreak is on the same level as a category about hospitals?
Category:Health in Spain, Category:Healthcare in Spain - barely anything in the healthcare subcat; nurses/doctors/healthcare all in 'health'
Category:Healthcare in Canada, Category:Health in Canada - almost everything is in Health; healthcare is just a few articles, so they seem to have made this shift already.

There is already a rich tree of various healthcare subcats that can and should be used, but a high-level distinction at the country level between health and healthcare is not needed. In cases where there are too many images, the solution should be to create subcats, like 'Hospitals' or 'Clinics' or 'Doctors' or 'Patients' - but a high-level separation between Health and Healthcare just ends up confusing editors, as you can see from the haphazard placement of items to date. Health can be seen as an outcome of Healthcare, so they are two sides of the same coin, and when it comes to classifying images, it is *not* useful to try to distinguish between the two - for example, to have HIV statistics under 'Health' but to have HIV treatment centers under 'Health care' and then HIV public campaigns back under 'Health'.

Finally, maintaining these categories as is poses challenging classification problems: for example, in a given image, a patient may be receiving healthcare, or may be becoming more healthy. In addition, as was discussed the other CfDs, it is actually rather difficult find a sharp line between health and healthcare - for example, where does medical research and education, or blood banks, or HIV activism, or health legislation, or public health messaging, or death from cancer go? I could cite many other examples where it is ambiguous, and definition of Wikipedia:Health and Wikipedia:healthcare is not necessarily of much help, since healthcare is the activity, and health is the result (thus two sides of the same coin). If you look at the haphazard classification used to date, it is clear that there is no common consensus or understanding by commons editors on whether a given image is about 'healthcare' or about 'health' - so you end up having to search both categories, and the distinction doesn't help at all - it only confuses.

At the end of the day, in order to make it easy for users to find and classify the images they are looking for, we have two choices:

accept the status quo, spend some time to come up with a long list of definitions as to what is healthcare and what is health, then go through all of these categories fixing things, and spend the next few years monitoring it to make sure images don't go awry, and force users to pay the penalty of themselves having to understand this subtle and inconsistently applied "difference" between the health and healthcare categories
Or, merge the categories.

Thus for now, I am proposing a full merge of these categories to 'Health in X'. It is probably cleaner to delete 'Healthcare in X', but we could also keep a redirect. I welcome your thoughts and comments. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: I found several more Healthcare in X cats, usually for national sub-divisions; I have added them to this CfD for consistency and completeness.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

When looking in those cats that are really populated (Germany, France, ...), there is indeed a serious mixup, but they deserve to remain split-up. Experience shows that merges for simplification are very often undone later as they become too crowded. A proper split seems not so difficult, documentation might seem more complicated, although to me, healthcare is the main cat in the sense that it concerns organising and doing things related to the health of people, and will be quickest populated in the short term. I think that with a minimum of documentation and making sure that all the root and by country categories are properly organised, the correct structures will propagate in an organic way to the deeper categories. --Foroa (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Foroa. I can see your POV, but I have considered this issue deeply, including through the process of cleaning up this mess in the en.wikipedia, and I am convinced that there is no value to be gained by trying to define such a separation - for categorization purposes - between health and healthcare. You say "healthcare is the main cat in the sense that it concerns organising and doing things related to the health of people" - in this case, what then remains for "health"? For example, is exercise "health" or "healthcare"? In some cases, exercise is prescribed by a doctor, so is a form of care or treatment for an ailment; in other cases, it is used for maintenance of good health, thus not technically healthcare... Let me give you another example:

A picture of someone with a disease - this is a condition of the human body, so we put under 'health'
The same picture of the same person, but we've zoomed out and realize they're in a clinic being treated, so we put under 'healthcare'
The same picture of the same person, but they're now relaxing in the hospital feeling better and sharing a smile with their family - it is thus an image of wellness, and thus we put under 'health'
Now the same picture, but the doctor walked into the room to discuss the treatment options - now again we're back in 'healthcare'

Thus, 4 pictures of the same person taken 5 minutes apart could potentially be categorized in different places only based on a few changes in scenery. This doesn't make sense to me.

Another example is just to consider the huge breadth of types of content that are out there - such as graphs of health status, graphics on treatment status (would those be split between health and healthcare?), public health campaigns (is this health or healthcare? even the experts don't agree on that); blood banks, medical research institutes (which may do research into the basic functioning of human health, but may also do research into treatments), social security and insurance (is that healthcare since it's about how you pay for treatment, or is it health as it's about the overall health status of a population? both!), etc etc etc. At the end of the day, there is no simple rule you can apply, you would end up having to make a long list, and in many cases arbitrarily just decide "X = health, Y = healthcare" (arbitrary since health and healthcare are two sides of the same coin), and it is a pretty sure guarantee that the editors won't even follow those rules in any case, making it someone else's job for the rest of time to clean it up. Yes, there are clear-cut cases like a surgery, but for every clear cut case there are dozens of edge cases that could be argued either way. And that is the crux of the problem.

As to your point that the merge may create crowded categories, allow me to suggest that creation of sub-categories (eg. hospitals, doctors, etc) will easily de-clutter any top level category. If you can come up with a simple (or even a complex!) heuristic for sorting a given image as 'health' or 'healthcare' please share it, I have tried and I have asked many other editors, in vain - no one over several CFDs ever came up with one that came even close to covering the numerous edge cases, or that would provide an editor or a searcher with a simple way to say "when looking for image X, check category Y". Here are a few more images I found browsing one of the categories, and for each one I could make a cogent argument to place it in health, and in healthcare: "a vaccination campaign sign, a sign encouraging people to get tested for HIV, a meeting on health and healthcare policy, a lab worker with blood samples (is he doing research on health, or tests on a patient? should it matter?), life expectancy graph, treatment-adjusted life-expectancy graph). In any case, I welcome your (and other's) further thoughts on this matter. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Need more time, will look in it later. --Foroa (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I did spend a couple of hours in those categories and did not found major inconsistencies, while it confirmed my feeling that in the long run, those categories should be kept apart. In most major topic trees, we have a split between concepts and implementation/execution, that tends to be contested in the beginning: art/artists, painting/painters/paintings, sculpturing/sculptors/sculptues, literature/writers/books ... I would worry more about the Medicine category that is much more inconsistent per country and could need a better definition. --Foroa (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - but I've struggled with this though - how would you split things? In the cats I've looked at, there isn't any consistency, and I can't imagine what guidance one might give to editors to determine whether a given image is about healthcare or health.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the best way forward is to agree about a reference category tree in a particular country such as Germany. Making a conceptual list seems difficult as there are very often categories created. Concerning the guidance of a particular image, I think that neither Health of Healthcare should contain images in the long run, so images should go into deeper categories that are less conceptual and much more obvious. --Foroa (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cord Broyhan[edit]

Empty category. Leyo 23:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Some informations had been added. In the future people will find some more historical documents directly in the category ... --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Photographs by Doug Kerr[edit]

Propose merging Category:Photographs by Doug Kerr (~600 images) with Category:Photos by Dougtone (~900 images). Both are categories for the same Flickr user's images: [9] --GrapedApe (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Support per nom. – TMF (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- To clarify, I'm supporting the merge of "... Dougtone" into "... Doug Kerr". A cursory glance at Category:Photographs by photographer shows that the categories bear the photographer's actual name, not an alias (such as "Dougtone"). – TMF (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Support per nom; would prefer that the merged category be located at Category:Photographs by Doug Kerr. Mackensen (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified media by Goldduck58[edit]

This category seems to be honouring socketpuppeteer. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's no honour to appear under Category:Sockpuppeteers. This is a maintenance category :) --moogsi (blah) 11:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's empty, from maintenance POV. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

Category:Francesco Pozzi[edit]

Should be disambig., since there are:

Francesco Pozzi (1704-1789), plasterworker (?)
Francesco Pozzi (1750–1805), engraver
Francesco Pozzi (1779–1844), wax artist and sculptor

I don't know which name their categories should bear, therefore I'm asking. --Flominator (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

All 3 images relate to #3. Note "stuccoist" is what #1 was. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Created category for #3 and #1. Didn't know which "job category" to add for Category:Francesco Pozzi (1704–1789), though. Ideas? --Flominator (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Found Category:Stucco artists.

Done --Flominator (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Animatronic[edit]

should be Animatronics - I'll create / move photos if noone has objection Mjrmtg (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Support --Foroa (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Economy by city[edit]

Wikipedia has this category as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Economies_by_city Economies should it be changed here? Mjrmtg (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

There are thousands of categories different on Commons. Most important is that it is consistent across continent, country, region, district and city level. --Foroa (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Views from the International Space Station[edit]

The category used for the images that are already in Category:ISS Crew Earth Observations. All photos from there that do not depict earth are in Category:Views of the International Space Station. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

So much for discussion. It should be recreated. It's a parent for Category:ISS Crew Earth Observations and any images from (not of) the ISS looking the other way or at approaching spacecraft.. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a parent of that category, if I remember that correctly. The only content was the Chris Hadfield category. Not a single image was directly in the cat. But it may make sense to put it into the cat-tree the way you describe it. Why it was deleted without discussion - I don't know.

That would then be:

ISS
- Views from the ISS
  - ISS Crew Earth Observations
  - ISS Crew EVA Observations*
  - ISS Crew Docking Observations*

*) or something similar, might make sense because these are also quite a few images I think. All three would then also be in "Activities on the International Space Station". --Julian H. (talk/files) 10:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of Nikon cameras up there which the crew use to photograph the Earth, however, there are probably a lot more photographs taken by equipment on the ISS. To look at the images, they will look the same at first glance. If a category describes 'crew EO' then another should exist for the ISS automated photography, or the category could describe both 'EO from the ISS'. Penyulap ☏ 11:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cyrtodactylus malcomsmithi[edit]

spelling mistake, though IUCN lists the species as Cyrtodactylus malcomsmithi the taxon is actually Cyrtodactylus malcolmsmithi (see type description and every other source not based on IUCN) Rbrausse (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thgoiter's approach would be {{Invalid taxon category redirect|.. - imho a plausible solution. Rbrausse (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fantastic novel barnstars[edit]

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

On it's own, the word 'novel' is ambiguous. When it's in the next category up, with all the other categories and creative adjectives to describe barnstars, the word novel takes on the meaning of 'unique' rather than 'book' I would suggest something like 'Barnstars based upon fantastic Novels' would describe the category. --Penyulap ☏ 11:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fantasy novel barnstars? More difficult to misinterpret --moogsi (blah) 12:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Primitive and Natives art of war[edit]

The title and the concept for this category is mind-bendingly racist and pejorative. This category should be deleted, and the images in question could be categorized in the appropriate Category:Military history by country. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Sorry Uyvsdi : there was absolutely no "racist" or "pejorative" intentions : the idea was to study the "art of war" among prehistoric peoples ( primitive ) and ancient natives nations - the military art of those nations being very close the prehistoric one refering to prehistoric paintings of gaming and combat - for an entry on FR-WIKIPEDI. And refering also to studies about that topic published eg by Emile Wanty, an historian and professor at the Belgian Ecole Royale Militaire which may certainly not be suspected of any form of racism! Cheers Thib Phil (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

delete per nom, and reclassify in Military history by country. The term 'native' in this context can be seen as pejorative; Is a Frenchman on French soil a 'native'? If not, why is an Indian on Indian soil a 'native'? see [10] for further discussion. Finally, linking prehistoric/primitive groups with so-called 'native' groups is also a POV linkage - what do cave drawings in France have to do with Ghanaian soldiers in the 1860s? We could create a new cat called "Prehistoric art of war" that would collect ancient art such as cave art on this topic which would be interesting and not pejorative since it refers to a time period (instead of calling some group of people 'primitive'). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Must be some misunderstanding indeed : native is translated "indigène" in french and the term is not racist ! So my apologies to whom feel schoked and do as you consider the best - I will just keep some webads of documents for my entry in french - just wait I created my "personal gallery". Thib Phil (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous is sometimes used in these cases and is probably a better translation of indigene.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned ! Thib Phil (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion[edit]

Category:Ethnographic military art would be a useful category, using the apporopriate term in English. Note that should not contain weapons, but an "art of War" parent could. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

THX : usefull suggestion ! But one can hardly speak about indigenous art of war without speaking about indigenous weapons as both are obviously related - what do you thing ? Thib Phil (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Native Americans in art by country[edit]

"Native American" on Wikipedia is defined as being an Indigenous person from the United States, so this category should be deleted. Uyvsdi (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

comment American can be seen as a broader term and can refer to indigenous peoples from elsewhere in the Americas (eg Canada, Mexico, etc) - the question is do those groups accept that this term might apply to them. In any case, the category is empty - did you empty it before nominating? if so, please re-populate it, so we can see what was in there before - otherwise it is hard to judge this category. Was it supposed to refer to art from France that depicted Native Americans? Or something else? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed in incredible length on Wikipedia, but probably the best round up of the discussion can be found in Native American name controversy and the introduction to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Especially in Canada, "Native American" is not the preferred term for Aboriginal peoples of Canada. The primary category here in Wikimedia Commons is Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas. I can repopulate (although going through history seems easier). -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

It looks like this category was created along with many others to depopulate the over-crowded Category:Native Americans in art. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Rename In that case, I vote to rename to Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art by country, and then move it up one level so it sits under Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art, and then add Category:Native Americans in art underneath that category, with a descriptor at the top explaining that it refers to depictions of native americans from what is now the United States; then do the work of creating new sub-categories as necessary to depopulate Category:Native Americans in art. A suggestion for the future - don't depopulate a category before nominating it for deletion, as it makes it hard to understand what was the editor's intent in creating that cat in the first place.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete "By country" is ridiculous. For one thing, you also have tribal nations like the Blackfeet who live in both the US and Canada (similarly, certain groups live in both the US and Mexico). "Indigenous people of the Americas" also encompasses South America, by the way. May want to consider "North America", though I have no strong position. Category:Native Americans in art seems fine, though Indigenous peoples of ... " can also work. Or maybe add a category for First Nations people (i.e. Canadians) and if too crowded, then needs to be broken down by tribal affiliation, i.e. "Blackfeet artists" "Sioux artists" etc., leaving people with multiple tribal ancestry in the generic main category. But "by country" is redundant and unnecessary, needs to go. Montanabw (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

comment - note this category is not about artists who are indigenous - this is about depictions in art of various groups. It was suggested that Category:Native Americans in art (a) is too big and (b) contains groups which are not in the United States - apparently "Native Americans" only works for those in the US. We already have Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art, which as you note includes *all* of the Americas (North, south, central, even Caribbean), but the question still remains - if we move the non-US from Category:Native Americans in art to Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art, that category will remain too large and could use breaking down. I don't think there is any issue with linking it to a particular country - we run into this discussion all the time - for example in Wikipedia we have en:Category:Archaeological_sites_in_County_Sligo, even though these sites were built 5000 years before County Sligo was even imagined - it is impossible to completely avoid anarchronisms! If you really have an issue with anachronism, take a look at Category:People_in_art_by_country, which is chock full of this sort of stuff.

IMHO, the best solution is to find something that is practical, and division by current country boundary is widely used across categories in all of wikipedia and commons. If you look at the current depictions, many of them already say "brazilian indians" or "indians in peru" or other such notions, so it won't be hard to break these down (and we already have Category:Indigenous_peoples_of_Brazil_in_art and Category:Indigenous peoples of Canada in art - others could be added. Yes you're right, some tribes cross current borders - of course they do, it would be ridiculous to think otherwise... but you can either divide by the current nation-state boundaries, or the much larger geographical ones (e.g. North America, Central America, South America), or come up with other subdivisions and then try to figure it out - I think in the end, for the average user, it will be easier to understand "here is an image of a person who (probably) lived in what is now called Canada".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but the point still holds; if the "Native Americans" category is too big, then breaking down by indigenous ethnicity (Blackfeet, Crow, Sioux, Ojibwa or whatever) is the most appropriate method and should not be particularly difficult, whether you are talking art or artist. For example, "Blackfeet people in art" would be fine. Where it is a generic "Indian" then even breaking down into cultural groups is usually possible, i.e. "Northeast Woodlands", "Plains Indians" etc...at least for historic images. Montanabw (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The majority of these images would be impossible to break down by ethnic group or even country, since a lot of them are generic or stereotypical; however, several other categories were creates to depopulate the Category:Native Americans in art, such as Category:Native Americans in art by artist‎, Category:Native Americans in art by medium‎, and Category:Native Americans in art by subject‎. "Media" would probably be the best place to start. Possibly, Category:Native Americans on stamps or Category:Native Americans in book illustrations could be created. I did create Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in advertisement, since it would be a stretch to define the subcats (logos, mascots, cigar store Indians, etc.) as "art." -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

So if there is no need to break down by geography, then the category needs to be deleted. There seeems no other plausible option?Montanabw (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Here, here! -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
comment At the very least, we should try some sort of geographical breakdown nonetheless. If there is strong disagreement with country categories, how about at least continental ones (e.g. Indigenous peoples of North America in art, Indigenous peoples of the Caribbean in art, then South America, Central America, etc - and have all of this under Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art by location? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply: I guess I don't see the need for a geographical breakdown at all. And do we count Mexico as North America or Central America? Technically, Central America IS part of North America! And, for example, some people in the border regions could fall into more than one category (say, for example, people living in parts of both Panama and Venezuela; or Mexico and Guatemala, etc...) I guess I don't see why a geographical breakdown (as opposed to an ethnicity breakdown if/when obvious, which might be helpful) is needed for its own sake. I guess I'm open to hearing if there's a policy on Commons that says we must do this, but absent a mandate, I hesitate to break it down more than the landmass. Montanabw (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Mexico is North America, as is Panama and everything north, including the Caribbean. What gets confusing is when things get broken into "Latin America," so I try to avoid that. Yeah, the Circum-Caribbean peoples span both North and South, so that's why I personally shy away from those divisions. There's only 17 files in Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art. It's Category:Native Americans in art that is grossly overpopulated. It seems we three agree to delete this category (Category:Native Americans in art by country). Why not just try to move the files in Category:Native Americans in art, which are mostly US (those that aren't should be moved out), into the subcategories (medium, artist, museum collections)? A lot of these actually already are in subcats, and it's just a matter deleting the superfluous supercat. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Ok, lets do this - move everything out of Category:Native Americans in art which is clearly not US to Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art, and move down anything left into some of the subcats you've defined, and then we'll see what is left and revisit this - can we put it on hold until that cat work is done? As to the geographies, Central America and Caribbean are both part of NA, so they would be subcats - see en:Category:Health by continent / en:Category:Health in North America for how this works in other cats in wikipedia (Mexico is NA, not Central America). I will move Category:Native Americans in art by country up to Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art as that's the right level for it, and once we've cleaned the cats we will revisit whether a geographic breakdown is needed. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's simply delete this category. The terminology is absurd since elsewhere throughout Wikimedia categories, "Native Americans" refers to Indigenous peoples in the United States, so the premise of this category is absurd. Any other decisions can happen on the talk pages of the categories. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I can see your point; but again, we have Category:Native Americans in art, which is, by your own words, a country-specific category - something you guys are arguing shouldn't exist! We also have Brazilian and Canadian categories already, and we could easily create one for Peru. So why not rename for now? If you're eager to delete, fine we can delete, but then I or someone else would probably recreate Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art by country and it would have the same contents... You can't have it both ways - if you have country-specific cats, it makes sense to have a country container - so let's just rename it to Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art by country and leave it at that?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. All I would like to achieve here is deleting this category. Conversation about the Category:Native Americans in art can take place on its talk page, which would be the appropriate place. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I'm certainly not trying to put words in your mouth. As you said, ""Native Americans" refers to Indigenous peoples in the United States" - therefore I take that to mean Category:Native Americans in art is for depictions of indigenous peoples who lived in what is now the United States - thus it is already a country-specific category. I think your original point in nominating this is right - if NA means US only (more or less), then NA by country doesn't make sense - but that doesn't mean "Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art by country" doesn't make sense. If deleting/re-adding a different cat is easier/faster, I'm fine with that, but since we already have 3 country-specific cats, unless we decide to get rid of those, I don't see that having a container is a bad thing. The question is, what do we name the container?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas in art. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)uyvsdi

Category:Road signs in New England, Australia[edit]

This category should be deleted. "New England" is an unoffical region of Australia, there is no government, there would be no authority over road signs. The areas comprising "New England" fall under the authority of New South Wales. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Transport in Finland by year[edit]

I request all pre-2000 "YYYY in transport in Finland" to be deleted. There are so few pre-2000 transport related pictures (and so few pictures at all) taken in Finland from that consistent categorization is not possible and this kind of fine-grain categorization actullay does more harm than good.

At the moment such categories are:

Some earlier discussions are available at User talk:J 1982#Unnecessary date categories.

There are similar categories also for other countries and they may need discussion as well.

––Apalsola ^{t • c} 10:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding some more similar categories (even more specific):

––Apalsola ^{t • c} 10:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Add "x year in transport in Finland" to "Bridges in Finland completed in x year", which will enlarge the category. J 1982 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I have no problem with transport by year categories. However, that does not necessarily mean that we need them for every country or for every epoch. Their creation should be warranted. And if we need a whole other category tree, Bridges in Finland completed in x year (the need for which is similarly debatable), just to make sure the first category tree is properly populated, then it seems to show that the first category tree isn't probably needed or appropriate. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Whats it is problem with them? Obelix (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Apalsola was quite clear in his explanation of what (s)he believes the problem to be. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ancient pueblo people[edit]

Should be renamed "Ancient Pueblo peoples" — "Pueblo" should capitalized and "peoples" due to the fact that this category include diverse groups over time Uyvsdi (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Support rename to Category:Ancient Pueblo peoples --moogsi (blah) 23:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Support rename per nom. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

February 2013[edit]

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Clerics with ermine garment[edit]

Reasons for discussion request --Carolus (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Please rename to Category:Roman Catholic clergy with ermine garment, dit is exacter, specifiek en correct het wordt dan een subcat van Category:Roman Catholic clergy. Dit is trouwens al gebeurd bij cat:Roman Catholic clergy with rabat. Dankje.Carolus (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Renamed by setter of the wrong named category. --Kürschner (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you show the link please? thnx Carolus (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"with ermine garment" is not grammatical, whoever is doing it. It should be Category:Roman Catholic clergy wearing ermine. Johnbod (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a Roman Catholic :)

Not all Ermine or Rabit...

Oppose renaming this category, 2 reasons:

"Cleric" doesn't even necessarily refer to Christians, let alone Roman Catholics. Not everyone in this category is a Roman Catholic.
"with ermine garment" is not grammatical in English

As above, creating Category:Roman Catholic clergy wearing ermine is fine, but don't assume every image in Category:Clerics with ermine garment necessarily belongs there moogsi (blah) 22:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Should it be renamed into "Clergy wearing ermine"? --Kürschner (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

@Moogsi; please see the construction of subcat Category:Roman Catholic clergy with rabat, idd only for Roman Catholic prelats, the rest is Category:Clerics with rabat like the image of the guy right.Carolus (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@all; Ermine is wrong, i have proved that most of it is accualy just white rabit and other grey animals, (eekhoorn), so not ermine!!Carolus (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC

Please, can you give some examples? I suspect, rabbit in this category only imitates ermine?--Kürschner (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That is correct, because of the price, it is so calles "Faux-Lapin" in ecclesiastical Flanders. Carolus (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Republicans from Oregon[edit]

Move to more accurate Category:Members of the Oregon Republican Party Pete F (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment Since I nominated, I notice there is a nice navigational bar at the top of the category providing links to other states. I propose we leave the original category as a redirect so that this can remain part of the system. -Pete F (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment I created Category:Republicans from Oregon so as to be consistent in naming with other state entries at Category:Republican Party (United States) politicians by state or territory.
The "Members of" phrase is perhaps more restrictive. The term "from Oregon" may be understood to also include people who were born in Oregon and later became Democrats or Republicans in a different, perhaps unknown, place. I believe it may be difficult to identify which state political party federal appointees are members of.
If political party categories are to be renamed, a concise statement of inclusion and exclusion should be produced to clarify what the categories should consist of. Whatever solution is arrived at should involve consistency with the other states for both Republicans and Democrats.
SBaker43 (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for the analysis, it's helpful to understand the history of the category and how it relates to others. A few points to consider:
- Membership in a party is pretty easy to establish, at least for the vast majority of people for whom the category is appropriate: if he or she ran for partisan office in the state, we know he or she was a member of that party.
- The "federal appointees" case is, I think, an edge case we don't need to worry about much. The category is mainly useful for people who have run for or occupied political offices. Most federal appointees will have done so in their state, and can be categorized on that basis. But in their capacity as a federal appointee, they are not necessarily doing a political so much as a government job. In other words, they are not appointed as a member of a party (even though their loyalty to a party or its values might be a big factor in the president's decision). Political appointments at the federal level would be for judges and Cabinet secretaries (anybody I'm missing?) and I don't see categories by party as being especially important there. If they are, I think, for example, Category:Republican-appointed federal judges or Category:Democratic Presidential Cabinet members might be the way to go -- where the party of the appointing president is the factor we track, even though it differs in a few cases from the party of the appointee.
- Back to political officeholders: a principle we've used on English Wikipedia: if a politician held a federal office, they should be categorized under Category:Democratic Party (United States), while state officeholders would be categorized under the state party. Maybe that idea is useful here? -Pete F (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Democrats from Oregon[edit]

Moved to more accurate Category:Members of the Democratic Party of Oregon Pete F (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Drawings on the rock[edit]

Drawings on The Rock

Neither of the subcats are really drawings (petroglyphs = carvings, pictographs = paintings). The category name seems slightly awkward (which rock?), and Category:Rock art also exists. Suggest this is deleted in favour of that. moogsi (blah) 11:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be Fresco's? Carolus (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Frescos are painted on wet plaster. I don't think I'd call that a rock. I think this category was made to fill a gap in Category:Drawings by surface which didn't need filling --moogsi (blah) 10:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kaiser streets[edit]

inconsistent name, should be "Emperor streets", cf. King streets, Queen streets, etc. Paulbe (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I still question whether any of these categories should be there at all:

moogsi (blah) 19:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

For the nomination itself, I think "Kaiser" is a well enough naturalized word enough in English that you don't need to translate it. There are quite a few Kaiser Streets in the US, including one in Houston. But I'm not in favour of translating street names just so they can go in the same category anyway, as you make assumptions about history and etymology that could make the category nonsensical --moogsi (blah) 00:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Rue de l'Université in Belgium[edit]

For consistency with other Streets by name cats, name should be "University streets in Belgium". There is also a Universiteitsstraat in Gent/Ghent and in Antwerpen/Antwerp. Paulbe (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Support, like they all are french streets??? Language balans should be neutral. Carolus (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Casa del Fascio (Florence)[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Palazzo Banco di Napoli (Napoli)[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Gerichtsplatz Bozen[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Palazzo della casa del mutilato[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Palazzo della provincia (Naples)[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Palazzo della SIP (monte di Dio)[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Villa Bayon (Florence)[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Palace in via Piagentina[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ponte Giovanni da Verrazzano (Florence)[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Palazzo della Confindustria[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Empty after deletion for FOP. Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Monte dei Paschi building in Colle di Val d'Elsa[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Autostrada del Sole church[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Auditorium del Parco[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lingotto - Bolla[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Stadio San Nicola[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

the template are incorrect, this discussion is for delete a category no for rename it. I want keep this category, it is possible that someone make a pics for this structure, maybe a picture of a seat stadium, which is outside the FOP. is also possible that this will restore some deleted images, as the campaign for the cancellation of NO-FOP was done superficially and have been deleted many images that did not violate any law. If you are under discussion here: Commons:Bar_italiano#Campagna_di_cancellazione_per_il_NO-FOP_Italy_.28_.C3.A8_fatta_molto_male.29 --Pava (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Would it not make more sense to keep the categories? If you are so concerned about copyright violations then surely these images will be easier to find if they are categorized? All that deleting these categories accomplishes is making future images more difficult to find. Just because it's empty, it doesn't mean that no images of the building will be uploaded in the future, or that there aren't any images in the ~300000 completely uncategorized that wouldn't fit there now. Do you imagine that once you've emptied these categories and deleted them, people will stop uploading pictures of these buildings? --moogsi (blah) 22:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree; those categories will come back again and again, sometimes with other name variations. All extra work, while if the images are dropped in that category, the FOP problem is explained and FOP images are "trapped". Moreover, in the long run, there will be "de minimis" pictures and pictures from people, exhibitions, events, details ... inside of those buildings. --Foroa (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Arco olimpico di Torino[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Palazzo Gualino[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Torre Littoria (Turin)[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not empty. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/02/Category:Stadio San Nicola. --Foroa (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Hotel Principi di Piemonte[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Complesso natatorio del Foro Italico[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Stadio Adriatico - Giovanni Cornacchia[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete Unconventional name and empty.—Bill william compton^Talk 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Stadio Riviera delle Palme[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not empty. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/02/Category:Stadio San Nicola. --Foroa (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Stadio Marcantonio Bentegodi[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Is it possible that there are no photos of this stadium? Let me see...

...That's strange. I wouldn't have created a category if there hadn't been any pictures of it. I'm afraid that a FOP stroke again. See Stadio Marcantonio Bentegodi on it.wikipedia to understand. After a quick stroll through categories about buildings in Verona I didn't find any pictue of that stadium. - εΔ ω 17:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/02/Category:Stadio San Nicola. --Foroa (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cassa di Risparmio di Venezia[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Projectors[edit]

LED projectors habe ich neu angelegt. Es sollte eine Category unter Projectors sein und neu unter Kategorie unter Projectors. Was habe ich falsch gemacht? Bomas13 (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Mit dem File: CatProjektors1.jpg habe ich mal Anlauf genommen um mir selbst ein Bild über die Struktur zu machen. Wir haben 2 wesendliche Ausgangspunkte, einerseits "Optical instruments" und andererseits "Reveral film equipment". Unter "Projectors" sollte alles aufgeführt werden, welches der Lemma dieser Category entspricht. Erfreulichrweise gibt es bei Projectors nicht eine solche Vielfalt wie bei Kameras.

Frage: Könnte unter "Projectors" einerseits Hersteller Unterkategorien gebildet werden, in dehnen verschiedene Arten von Projectoren eines Herstellers zusammengefasst sind und aber auch andererseits Katogorien nach Arten von Projektoren gebildet werden in dehnen dann eine Art von Projektor gesammelt wird, aber von verschiedenen Herstellern?

Bemerkung: Ein Laser Projektor ist von der Lemma nicht erfasst, Evt. mit einem Zusatz mit einbinden?

Ein Punkt, den ich auch "Trinitrix" geschrieben habe, sind die 4 Kategorien "Liesegang". Etwas unübersichtlich. Liesegang hat von vernachlässigbaren Ausnahmen abgesehen, in den letzten 100 Jahren Geräte für die Wiedergabe gefertigt, also Projektoren (mit Zubehör).

Wenn es hilfreich ist will ich gerne versuchen ein Strukturdiagramm von der Umgebung Projektors zu erstellen.Gruß --Bomas13 (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ab wann ist ein Projektor eine "Magic lanterns"‎; jeder Projektor älter als 1900 gebaut, gezeichnet? (Bemerkung: Ein Projektor ist ein Wiedergabegerät, keine Kamera)Gruß--Bomas13 (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:DLP in Category:DLP projectors ändern Gruß--Bomas13 (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Vorschlag Category: Projectors anders aufbauen. Ob das wirklich sinnvoll ist kann ich nicht beurteilen, aber es scheint übersichtlicher als vorher.

Category: Projectors

      Unterkategorie: Projectors by brand

Category: Projectors by brand

      Unterkategorie: Braun Praximat (15D) / von Cat.: Slide projectors

                      Filmosto slide projectors (2D) / von Cat.: Slide projectors
                      Leitz projectors(8D) / von Cat.: Projectors / usw.
                      Liesegang projectors / neu

Category: Ed. Liesegand products(1C,22F) löschen, neu verteilen

             Ed. Liesegand OHG products(1C) löschen, neu verteilen
             Ed. Liesegand OHG projector(1F) löschen, neu verteilen
             Ed. Liesegand slide projectors (10) löschen, neu verteilen
             Cinemeccania Victoria 5(1D)
             Cinemeccania Victoria 8(1D)
             Beide zusammenfassen,von Cat.:Projectors nach Cat.: Film projectors verschieben

Category: Ed. Liesegang OHG

      Unterkategorie: Raphael Eduard Liesegang
                      Liesegang projectors

Noch rigeroser wäre folgender Vorschlag: Category: Projectors

    Unterkategorie: Projectors by brand
                    Projectors by bild quelle
                    Projectors by licht quelle
                           Halogenlampe
                           Metalldampflampe
                           LED
                           Laser

Ich bin gespannt auf andere Meinungen. Natürlich die entsprechen Ausdrücke in englisch. Gruß--Bomas13 (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:City of Newburgh, New York[edit]

Seems redundant to have this category and Newburgh, New York. I've seen this with other cities in New York. Mjrmtg (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, enough of those cities have a corresponding, politically separate town with the same name adjacent to them (note that one of the subcategories to this one is Category:Town of Newburgh, New York). Ideally this category should just have those two subcategories and nothing else unless it arguably covers both city and town (like, say, a category devoted to the Newburgh Enlarged City School District, if we ever have one). It's hardly redundant, if you understand it. Daniel Case (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I majored in Geography but if this is the way they handle things in New York then far be it for me to question things. --Mjrmtg (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I majored in geography too, actually. Sorry if I came on a little too strong. This is better explained here. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Great article - I wish there was one for every state. Administrative divisions for New York are not easy to grasp if you're not from there. I've also been told Wisconin's take getting used to. --Mjrmtg (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Villa Tempe a Pailla[edit]

Empty category for a house created by Eileen Gray. This artist is dead in 1976, not in public domain. 86.217.66.72 20:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Metalic trams[edit]

Delete: better served with existing "Silver trams" and other metallic colors within other existing categories under Category:Trams by color. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Personaly I find it a bit silly to classify by colour, but if some people see a use for it, so be it. Some colours are dificult to define, as brown, orange, purple, etc. We should look at how other subjects are classified with colours. For me "silver", "gold" and "copper" are all a subcategories of reflective metalic colour. Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The silver trams are only 3 pictures of one special TCL tram in metalic livery. These are expensive liveries as the body is covered in non-corrosive metal. I have added two pictures of a "gold" tram. Again a special tram. (File:Lyon gold tram I.jpg and File:Lyon gold tram II.jpg) In wich colour category would this be placed? Golden ochre trams? Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ginkgo biloba by country[edit]

Subdviding a category of some organic species in several "category by country" is not useful for the project as it only makes more difficult for the user to find that species. Remember that the place where a photograph was taken can be inserted with the location template Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ginkgo biloba is overcrowded. There are now yet 97 photos. There were perhaps 200 some days ago. I think that transferring some photos to specific categories such as Category:Ginkgo biloba leaves or categories by country is a right way to reduce the number of photos in the main category. I did not create them, only use by adding some countries. You can see in Category:Trees by country that many trees are organized with categories by country. Sorry for my error about Coimbra. --Tangopaso (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You should have started this discussion at Category:Flora by taxon by country since the problem is not merely with Gingko biloba. Actually the fact that subcategories prevent a complete view of the parent category is a global inconvenience and not restricted to taxa only. However if you really want to see the entirety of the images of a category there are tools for that, like CastScan; here for Gingko biloba, but that's huge! - Olybrius (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete, and very strong

Delete all similar categories. Agree fully with Alvesgaspar; these Flora by taxon by country categories are a confounded nuisance and make it damn near impossible to find pictures when you have to look through 190 categories each containing one or two files. For over-full categories, the first most useful divisions are to create [[Category:X x (illustrations)]] and [[Category:X x (cultivated)]]. There is also the important point that natural organisms do not adhere to political boundaries; any further subdivision, particularly of natural (non-cultivated) items, should be done by taxonomic divisions (subspecies, varieties) or natural biogeographical regions. MPF (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Steam locomotives of Britain by railway[edit]

UK vs Britain?

This is a recent and undiscussed move of Britain to UK for railway categories. See Special:Contributions/Railwayfan2005. Those listed are for steam locomotives, but the issue applies to railway rolling stock in general. This same issue was raised two years ago at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2011/03/Category:Industrial_locomotives_of_Britain and the move was rejected.

The issues are:

Undiscussed beforehand, either through cat talk pages or through any sort of project organisation. This is a big change, its logical implications affect a substantial category tree.
GB is not the same thing as the UK! I know this is an international project, but will non-UK people please have just a little consideration for highly political local issues.
For railway matters, GB is much more appropriate than UK (see Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2011/03/Category:Industrial_locomotives_of_Britain). The different gauge used in Ireland and Northern Ireland means that the English, Welsh & Scottish systems in GB have much closer relations than they do with NI and the rest of the UK.

This isn't an argument against the UK categories as a metacategory of GB & NI, but we shouldn't remove the GB structure like this.

Note also that this issue doesn't really affect narrow gauge systems, but these are more regional anyway. Those need English, Welsh & Scottish groups, but they could go from this to UK without too much trouble – although even that doesn't exclude a GB category for consistency.

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a very tricky problem, in the past I have created "Britain" categories, but perhaps with hindsight regret this.

We have an established system of using UK, the main Category:Rail transport in the United Kingdom is subdivided into Rail transport in England‎, Rail transport in Northern Ireland‎, Rail transport in Scotland and‎ Rail transport in Wales‎. There is no Britain sub category. These categories cover everything rail related, stations, track, tunnels, junctions, depots, companies, history, etc not just rolling stock.

I have no preference for either term but the term chosen should be applied to all railway categories, the efforts to move some but not all categories to Britain (mainly rolling stock) has resulted in a confusing and unpredictable category tree. whatever term is chosen should be applied to all relevant railway categories.

A side issue is that both "Great Britain" and just "Britain" are used Category:Diesel locomotives of Great Britain V Category:Steam locomotives of Britain

Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2011/03/Category:Industrial_locomotives_of_Britain hardly reached a conclusion just two people disagreeing.

In practice the Northern Ireland media has found itself in it's own separate sub category of the UK, that being NI

On balance I support sticking with UK cats as I feel attempts to move to Britain will end up being half implemented resulting in a confusing category structure. Unless someone will do the whole structure, which I suspect would be very hard to complete.

Oxyman (talk)

" the efforts to move some but not all categories to Britain"

What efforts? This is an effort to move things the other way. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Simply that the UK structure existed before any "Britain" structure, the Britain categories have been created by people not following the established protocol (I include myself in this) at first they were so minor that it didn't really matter, but then we started getting duplications of the UK structure Category:Diesel locomotives of the United Kingdom was created 31 January 2008‎, we now also have Category:Diesel locomotives of Great Britain created 8 June 2012‎. the creator of that last category must have known about the first, The classes of locomotives listed are by and large duplicated in both categories, leaving me very confused as to why it was felt the duplicate cat was needed Oxyman (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have some sort of problem with me, let's just skip that "the creator of that last category" malarkey and say that I was the one who did it (which you obviously knew, having looked at the creation date), and it was a substantial bunch of effort to place a load of correctly-categorised BR sub cats into it. Now unless I've missed out on the Deltics in Derry, the railway systems of NI and GB are isolated and have little interoperation for any rolling stock. We wouldn't merge UK categories with France, just because the Southern used to run boat trains there. Why should we upmerge an achieved structure that reflects a clear reality? It's not as if anyone is suggesting "Locomotives of Scotland" as a distinct group.

So are you in favour of edits like this, where a category for narrow gauge in Wales is categorized into the general "UK, any gauge" lump? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You directly asked what efforts I was referring to about moving some but not all categories to Britain. So I gave you an example of such practice, presumably as it was you who was doing it you knew full well what I was referring to, you can't ask for such an example and then claim that I have "some sort of problem with" you when I give you that example. I Have never claimed that the NI rail system is not separate to that of GB, in fact I have some agreement that we have a "British" railway system. But I would point out that we have had UK cats for rail transport for many years and it has worked out well enough with the NI media finding its way to a separate subcat, that of NI. Semantically you may be correct but why change just some rolling stock cats? creating confusion and a disjointed cat structure, When as I have already said the UK cats cover everything rail related, stations, track, tunnels, junctions, depots, companies, history, etc. I don't wish to attack you or anyone else over this matter, as I already said I have had some difficulties with this issue myself and have created cats inconsistent with what had been established. Is it really a good idea to partially dismantle an established cat structure by fussing over such semantics? Personally I doubt it affects someone who is looking for media relating to UK/GB railways what term is used so long as they can follow a consistent cat structure Oxyman (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As the person responsible for the moves my opinion is that the England, Britain & Great Britain tiers add no value to the by railway category. They just add an extra superfluous layer to be clicked through when trying to navigate the hierarchy. To be honest I don't think the distinction by fuel type and gauge currently adds any value either, other than perhaps to people who search for the exact category name. The heritage railway tier can be put aside as well. The only things which really matter are the railway itself and the fact it's a UK railway. The rest of the sub tiers are just cruft. As a resident of the UK I hate the fact that nobody understands the name of the country we inhabit. (PS the Industrial locomotives debate never went to a vote so was not rejected.) Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So why not merge to "Locomotives of Europe" ? Whether you're interested or not, it's pretty indisputable that there are many readers who do care about regions, power or even broad issues of gauge to the standard/smaller level. No-one is asking you to do the legwork to implement this, just to not remove work that was already done. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Readers? This is Wikimedia not Wikipedia. All that has happened so far is to create an un-navigatable mess. Lets ditch the superfluous Britain/Great Britain level, and if you feel the UK level categories are overpopulated move to separate England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales levels. Whilst we are at it can we set out what "Railway" means and what "UK" means? What railway does Tornado belong to? What's the naming convention we are adopting for categories? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about overpopulation, it's about there being a functional difference between GB & NI rolling stock. Incidentally, one that isn't there across English, Welsh or Scottish stock. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What functional differences are there? In my experience, getting on a passenger train in Northern Ireland is much the same as getting on a train in Wales, or even Slovakia. I don't think the freight traffic noticed the difference either. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

They're a different gauge! What this means in practice is that "Scottish" rolling stock turns up in Wales from time to time, so there's no strong way to distinguish a standard gauge "scottish loco" from a "welsh loco", but there is for NI. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

There are cases where geographical categories seem to make more sense, but countries prevail in the interest of consistency and usability. If you look at any other category structure on Commons, locations are split by country first. You find very few "Britain" categories. Similarly, "Ireland" categories on Commons refer to the the country, the Republic of Ireland, and not the island - the islands of Britain and Ireland don't appear in the category structure for the majority of topics. Categorizing "Britain" as an entity in any context leaves NI hanging. You could pretend that "Ireland" actually does refer to the island, and put NI under that, but you walk into a minefield. I don't understand what the issue is with the physical difference between NI and GB, and the UK is usually split into 4 country categories anyway --moogsi (blah) 20:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

They're a different gauge! this has no bearing on the function of the railway. NIR commuters to Belfast are no different to rail commuters using the London Underground. In the halcyon days of yore, Slate was freight traffic regardless of whether it was moved by the Ffestiniog or GWR. I can see little useful scope for splitting things further in the by Railway branch, ie to England, NI, Scotland & Wales or even worse counties, because many of the railways (LMS, GWR etc) fall into more than one category. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

To see the issue, read en:standard gauge. Ireland (North and South) doesn't use standard gauge. The NI system has some aspects that have more in common with the South's. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Same issue raised in 2008 User_talk:Railwayfan2005#oh_great... Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't fork this discussion onto my user page, it belongs here. I am well aware that the gauges differ. If this is the reason for creating sub categories under Category:Steam locomotives of the United Kingdom then they should be Category:Broad gauge steam locomotives of the United Kingdom, Category:Standard gauge steam locomotives of the United Kingdom or even Category:Irish gauge steam locomotives of the United Kingdom etc. The Britain category is spurious. This at least would resolve the Industrial locos[11] debate.

To date you have not indicated why this category adds any value to the structure. The argument you present is undermined by your choice of category name. It's time this category got deleted so we can get on with actually doing useful stuff. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Chicago Skyway Bridge[edit]

"Chicago Skyway" and "Chicago Skyway Bridge" are one and the same. Should upmerge the bridge category into the main Skyway category. –Fredddie ™ 18:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The bridge is a subset of the skyway. --Foroa (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Look at w:Interstate 90 in Illinois#Exit list - the Skyway begins at mile 100, the bridge isn't until 105 --moogsi (blah) 20:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Kept, no follow-up to objections in a month. --rimshot^talk 21:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

January 2013[edit]

Category:Koleduvane in Poland[edit]

There is an article pl: Kolędowanie. For it is created Category: Koleduvane in Poland. Anonymous User: 46.174.26.234 it removes. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

this is not Russia, it can be translate on basic latin language or roman caltholic cutures, tradition .. etc. xxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.174.26.234 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 9 January 2013‎ (UTC)

The proposal to rename the article are discussed in en:Talk:Koledari (orthodox carolers) or pl:Dyskusja:Kolędowanie. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

common singing of carols (wspólne kolędowanie) in: Nation and Religion: The Politics of Commemorations in South-East Poland by Juraj Buzalka
kolędnik m carol singer, (Christmas) caroller or caroler; kolędlować (śpiewać kolędy) to sing (Christmas) carols; (odwiedzać sąsiadów) to go carol singing: in Wielki słownik polsko-angielski, 2004 p. 369
Koleduvane .... by Лобачев Владимир ???

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.174.26.234 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 12 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Hello.. what is the specific problem with the name of this category? Please sign your posts using ~~~~, or the discussion is very difficult to follow.

The name of the article on en.wiki is w:Koledari. The article also uses the term Koledovanie which would appear to be a transliteration of Polish or Slovenian. Koleduvane is a transliteration of Bulgarian. Currently, Commons has no internationalization system for the names of categories, and uses whatever the concept is commonly known as in English. It would seem the parent category would be best called Category:Koledari, and this specific subcategory Category:Koledari in Poland. Thanks // moogsi^(blah) 13:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The word "Koledari" is taken from the original Bulgarian article. This article has been renamed (see bg:Коледуване - Koleduvane). Hence the English article should be renamed "Koleduvane". --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I see. It seems the talk page on en.wiki has been lost at some point, so you'll have to forgive my ignorance. On Google Books, searching for pages written in English containing "Koledari" get over 3 times as many hits as "Koleduvane". It's not scientific but it's at least a suggestion that "Koleduvane" is a less common term in English. In any case it's very regretful that we don't have different languages for the category names yet :( --moogsi (blah) 14:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

«Koleduvane» (Caroling) – this rite. «Koledari» – are participants of the rite. Article – about the rite. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Well "koleduvane" does seem to be used about as much as "kolędowanie/koledovanie", but really it appears there is no English term for this. Writers tend to use the word of whichever country they happen to be talking about. It seems like something that will have to be solved with redirects for now, unless someone can come up with a compelling reason to use one word over another --moogsi (blah) 18:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Eastern Orthodox liturgical days[edit]

No source for filling this category. Currently this category filled by User:Silar, which adds to this category some days for pre-Christian folk festivals/holidays, usually attachment to some Orthodox holiday, but not directly related to the liturgy and have no right to be called collectively as "Eastern Orthodox liturgical days". --Kaganer (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Eastern_Orthodox liturgical days

Православни литургиски денови

Kaganer, are you saying this is not a valid category, or are you simply disputing what has been placed in the category? - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What has been placed. User:Silar, in his manner, put there is a very strange set of items. Category, he gives up (linked over interwiki) are linked incorrectly (if look at it strictly), because have different content in different wikis. In general, Sylar puts folk festivals in the category related (by his name) to a strictly defined set of religious events (in the Eastern Orthodox Churches). --Kaganer (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Images from United States Coast Guard[edit]

All images that have the tag {{PD-USCG}} categorize automatically into Category:PD US Coast Guard, Therefore this category is redundant. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with this... not sure what should done with the subcats, which have some crossover with Category:PD US Coast Guard Auxiliary, added by former template {{PD-USGov-DHS-CGAUX}}. If anything. --moogsi·(blah) 11:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Female writers from the United States[edit]

I find it very odd that male writers from the United States are all directly in the category "Writers from the United States" but female writers are ghettoized off to a subcategory. Either we separate all writers by a gender binary or not. Otherwise, we are effectively saying that men who write are "writers" but women who write are "female writers". Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Female categories make no sense and are an efficient way to marginalise them. --Foroa (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, you do not have subcategory. (The other categories or discrimination?) Tamba52 (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, but not completely with Foroa's general statement. Some professions are overwhelmingly male, so a female category can make sense in some cases. But generally and in this case, Foroa is correct that female categories can marginalize, and it doesn't make sense to have such a category here unless we are prepared to create a male writers category (which is unnecessary, IMHO). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Splitting a profession by gender only makes sense if gender has a major bearing on the profession (sportspeople, models...) --moogsi (blah) 15:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be ok if this were not a diffusing category, i.e. everything in Category:Female writers from the United States were also in Category:Writers from the United States. But it seems these are hard to label or understand on Commons --moogsi (blah) 01:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete: I think consensus is pretty clear on this. I don't often take cues from wikipedia, but w:WP:EGRS is a good, common-sense guideline IMO. As mentioned, it might be useful if w:Template:Distinguished subcategory or equivalent existed here... I don't think it does --moogsi (blah) 20:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete per above, and this also makes me wonder if categories like Category:Men of the United States should exist. But I bet that one has been discussed… -Pete F (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Striking my vote per what moogsi says below. Seems I was hasty. -Pete F (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I had another think about this. Maybe the justification as the top of w:Category:Women writers is worth considering... --moogsi (blah) 21:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete: not sufficient as argument to make us to create and maintain hundreds of additional categories allover the world. --Foroa (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete A wikipedia category serves an entirely different purpose than a Commons category. Wikipedia categories are intended to allow users to explore and read about similar topics (so a category dedicated to the field of women writers makes sense), while here we are mainly looking for the hierarchy that most easily allows users to find the media they need. I'm not sure that segregating women writers helps Commons users one iota. So while I appreciate the logic in the justification over at the en-wp category, it's not clear that it applies here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

While most posts here have agreed with me, I don't think this yet constitutes enough of a consensus to make a decision like this. I'm going to post on the Village pump and try to get more people to weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 16:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep: This is hard to avoid, because of the following train of logic:
1. There are some countries or genres where being a female writer would be especially notable and researchers may be especially interested in finding examples.
2. Once such a category exists, do you have a general Category:Female writers, or just a "female by country"/"female by genre" parent category, intentionally avoiding the general female writers category? (This is probably the point at which a decision is important.)
3. If you have a general Category:Female writers (like we do now), it will end up getting populated, because people are always going to add media to categories that match the subject.
4. If such a general category is going to be populated, then it almost certainly will be become so large that it will need a {{CatDiffuse}} to avoid becoming ridiculous.
5. If we have gotten to this point, then we're back to having subcategories for either every country with a large number of female authors, or every genre with a large number of female authors, or some other way of dividing up female writers so most of them are not in the general category.
I'd tend to lean towards keeping more categorization rather than less, especially when it might help classify media for educational use: See en:Category:Women writers pointed out by moogsi above. If Category:Female writers is going to stay, and Category:Writers from the United States is going to stay, we might as well have Category:Female writers from the United States (and put people in one discrete category instead of two general ones) if there is reason to believe that, for example, American female writers are a specific subject of educational interest. That being said: If a female category exists for a certain topic, it may be reasonable to have a "male" category also; and it might also be resonable to have a "male" category for those subjects where male involvement is an educational subject. (And non-diffusion categories are very difficult to enforce, especially on a multilanguage project where the "big" category rule drilled into everyone's head is that you don't add redundant parent categories.) --Closeapple (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind as much if we split all writers into "male" and "female". It does remove the ghettoization aspect, although it does rather enforce a gender binary: where do we end up classifying transgendered writers, or the occasional genderqueer or intergendered writer? E.g. what would you do with an image of Patrick Califia or Christine Jorgensen? Still, it would be better than the situation where male writers are simply "writers" and female writers are "female writers". - Jmabel ! talk 07:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete Per Jmabel's. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 07:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Interesting article in the New York Times on this very issue over at the English language Wikipedia: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism-toward-female-novelists.html?hp&_r=0 . --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nice to hear it from another and to help to stop wasting energy. --Foroa (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting retort as well: http://bookmaniac.org/journalists-dont-understand-wikipedia-sometimes/ --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Closeapple. http://www.flickr.com/ and http://500px are using non-hierarchical tags, and so should we, if people think of hierarchical categories as pigeon-holing. However, currently there's no suitable, userfriendly alternative to subcategories. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

While I agree we should be using tags, that's a whole other issue, involves a massive amount of work with MediaWiki, and is not going to happen soon. It isn't really relevant to this discussion. Perhaps I have misunderstood your comment.

And nobody is saying we should get of all subcategories for Category:Writers from the United States. The issue is whether we should be subcategorizing them by gender. There are lots of other, user-friendly ways of subcategorizing this category, as we do with other professions, by genre, location, association, etc. A number of such subcategories already exist. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Turboprop aircraft engines[edit]

Merge of Turboprop aircraft engines and Turboprop engines. There is no effective distinction between these two categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we should merge them too. The same goes for Category:Turbofan aircraft engines and Category:Turbofan engines. By the way, I am in the process of sorting out the main categories relating to "jet" engines in the most general sense. Ariadacapo (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:1520s paintings from Germany[edit]

1 imho this means paintings are now outside Germany. For File:Altdorfer, Albrecht - Donaulandschaft mit Schloß Wörth.jpg in Germany Category:1520s paintings from Germany is not applicable, here category .. in Germany must be used. All paintings in this cat are outside Germany exept File:Altdorfer, Albrecht - Donaulandschaft mit Schloß Wörth.jpg put in this cat by User:Mattes.—Oursana (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Wrong approach. Why pick one out of ~ 1,000 of such categories? A meta discussion is needed, or a new named extra category or at least a definition for the members of category:YYDDs paintings from COUNTRY. In my understanding, category:YYDDs paintings from COUNTRY means the decade of the completion of a painting plus the origin of the artist (e.g. completion in 1594 + German artist = category:1590s paintings from Germany). --Mattes (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:1520s paintings from Germany 27 Files out of 28 are correctly outside Germany, so users do not use this cat for paintings from and in Germany, see Baroque paintings from Italy with the following definition: English: Baroque paintings produced by Italian painters, currently located outside Italy. For baroque paintings in Italy please see: Baroque paintings in Italy.Definition by G.dall orto see difflink–—Oursana (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC);

Also see Category:Art in Venice: English: Works of art that were created or found in Venice and are still located there. For works of art that were created or found in Venice but now are preserved elsewhere please see Category:Art from Venice instead. For works of art which are not sure where they are, please see: Category:Art of Venice.–—Oursana (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I typed a long and rather annoyed comment on this topic a few days ago, then forgot to save it. Oursana, your definition does not make sense. A painting "from" a place is simply a painting "from" a place. This is a useful category structure. I went to a lot of work populating Category:Paintings from France by decade using the "VisualFileChange" tool (and Mattes gets credit for setting up most of these categories). I would like to do the same for Germany, Italy, and Spain, at least. I will not be considering whether the painting is "still in" that country, because it doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter what the definitions of some of those categories you mention are. They aren't valid definitions by the basic semantics of English prepositions. They lead us to an unuseful and illogical category structure (it's already happened, but I'm trying to fight it). "From" does not mean "no longer in", unless the context makes it obvious. And "Category:Paintings in France certainly does not contain only paintings by French painters that are still in French museums. The definitions you propose are not holding, because those definitions do not make sense. Please reconsider how far you want to take this argument. There are so many "art in a place" categories and so few "art from a place" categories that is mind-boggling. Yet which is more important? Obviously to categorize art by its origination tells us something important. What museum it happens to be located in today, much less important. Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I still hold on my arguments, "from" means indeed "no longer in", from is only meant after movement, if the painting is not moved it is only "in a country", the movement outside the country makes it "from the country", see Category:Paintings from Italy in Spain "from Italy" you use if you have no specific sub cats like this or the actual place outside Italy is not known. I do not want to repeat, but there is a difference between Category:Art from Venice and Category:Art of Venice. Perhaps you mean "of country"= italian, dutch..., then indeed the actual place is not important.–—Oursana (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Experiencing similar categories let me point out again that one can not only decide from seeing Cat:Art from x, but one has also to consider, that there is at the same time Cat: Art in x:

Category:1520s paintings from Germany and Category:1520s paintings in Germany, Category:Baroque paintings from Italy Category:Baroque paintings in Italy; Category:Art from Venice Category:Art in Venice. When both categories apply, using both would be over categorization, in these cases in X should prevail and from x should only be applicable when in x does not apply concurrently. So one must not interpret with view on grammar and wording only but from the context what makes sense with view to concurrenting categories.

And so again see the Definition: Baroque paintings produced by Italian painters, currently located outside Italy. For baroque paintings in Italy please see: Category:Baroque paintings in Italy.and also: Works of art that were created or found in Venice but now are preserved elsewhere. For works of art still located in Venice please see Category:Art in Venice instead. For works of art which are not sure where they are, please see: Category:Art of Venice. I am not familiar with the organization of this discussion. As it is a question concerning also other cats, should it be discussed in another place? –—Oursana (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I can imagine that those who don't have to do with Italian art, this system (in, from, of) can be almost incomprehensible and seem redundant. It is not. In Italy we have such an abundance of artistic objects of all kinds and from every culture and period, that it was necessary to organize his art in this way. The word "found" that sounds strange for a painting, it refers mainly to archaeological objects. In past centuries, Italy was truly plundered in ancient (and even in the medieval and modern) art that statues, vases, paintings, jewelry and more of extraordinary quality are now in the most important museums and private collections in the world. So, if we have any category of art in Italy (for example, "Ancient Roman statues in Rome"), and in it there are files of statues that are stored in London, New York, the Louvre together with those located in museums in Rome, then the preposition "in" simply is incorrect and not true. This categorization of Italian art is probably not so important for other countries, for example Germany. This can be discussed. But for me personally would sound also strange and incorrect the categorization "Paintings in Germany" used for a painting which is now in the Metropolitan Museum or the Louvre or the British Museum. For the categorization of Italian art, go back to a more simplified and ambiguous system, simply it's unthinkable and impossible. Furthermore among the artistic categories of Italy there are still many that need to be corrected and remedied in this way. The work certainly is not done yet. --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you for your answer, which I do not quite understand. I must admit, that until now, I did not notice that in is not in.

Here we are discussing if a painting from a german painter, which is still in Germany, can be cat:...from and in e.g. Germany at the same time, or as you said in Category:Art from Venice For works of art still located in Venice please see Category:Art in Venice instead. For works of art which are not sure where they are, please see: Category:Art of Venice.--Oursana (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

2 I think the answer is implicit. If in is in a place, then in cannot be the same as from a place. If an object is in a location, then it's in that location; if it is no more in that location, then it is not in that location but from that location. I think it's clear. It cannot be the same! (bolded by)--Oursana (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)--DenghiùComm (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a very strange interpretation of the phrase "something from somewhere". If I say a person is "from France", do they have to have moved out of the country? There are very very many ~~people who~~ paintings which are from France ~~who~~ which are also currently in France. If "from" and "in" are mutually exclusive, how do I describe ~~someone~~ something from France ~~who~~ which is still there? Maybe this is a language barrier thing --moogsi·(blah) 20:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest, what are the words you're translating as "in", "from" and "of"? Do they have a specific meaning when talking about objects or works of art? "From" in English doesn't imply any kind of motion in any context --moogsi·(blah) 20:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand what sense does to move the discussion on people. We are talking about objects, namely objects of art. People are not objects, and unlike objects, they move. The people of the world are divided by country (of). It is very reasonable that people by occupation are categorized "from country". A French architect or artist is always from France, if it is in France or if he moved to the United States. For our categories, for a person it makes no sense to speak of "in country". I'm surprised that it's necessary to explain this. --DenghiùComm (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about this very specific context, I'm talking about the language in general. You can't give a word a definition that no-one is familiar with and then expect them to use the categories in the way you expect. You can't say to everyone "oh by the way, before you use this category, let me tell you what 'from' really means..." I'm surprised it's necessary to explain this.. :( --moogsi (blah) 20:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Commons is a multi-cultural project. Being clear is the best thing to do. Unnecessary controversy ... --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well you certainly can say it to everyone... there's just no practical way to do that. Putting a note on the category page isn't enough. I just wish there were internationalization on the category names... --moogsi (blah) 22:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep. we have established categories: for where paintings were originally made, Category:Paintings by production area, with the subcats all in the form "Paintings from Foo", and for current locations of paintings, Category:Paintings by location, with the subcats all in the form "Paintings in Foo". We could try to revisit the whole tree, and define all the words differently. I say, regardless of the potential semantics for all these words, this is how we do it. Word up.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Foo is lovely this time of year --moogsi (blah) 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

From should mean "from" regardless of current location, "in" is used for current location. Johnbod (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Unless I was taught a different language than you, "in" means "in" and "from" means "from". There is no need to explain anything, simply there are some people that misread "from" as "in", and viceversa, hence the need to correct them. We need a method to tell if a painting "from" Venice currently "in" Milan is a different thing than a painting "from" Milan now in Milan -- or in New York. The simplest way is to say that what is in, is "in", and what is from, is "from". Saying that what is from is "in", and what is in is "from" is by no way a "simpler" way: it is merely a mess. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, to get you right: Would you call a painting still in Venice from Venice? Yes or no. Thanks. I think you remember yourdefinition in Baroque paintings from Italy--Oursana (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

3 (?see above difflink)--Oursana (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep Kinda weird ... Oursana ~~should~~ could create such categories (e.g. 1520s paintings once on display in Germany). --Mattes (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC) modified --Mattes (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep as stated above and following G.dallorto, and DenghiùComm 26.1. @Mattes:we must not create so many new categories. I recommend: ...from Italy in Austria as we have many, see among this, and ....from Italy location unknown, ...Italian...in Italy. Hopefully everybody can go ahead with this. It is not a question whether to keep, but how to use the cats--Oursana (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if you had more than one person agreeing with you, the thousands of other people using the category system would continue to use the words "from" and "in" to mean what they mean. I suggest you stop being so invested in this --moogsi (blah) 00:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

obviously you cannot count to three. I simply found different/disambigious categorizations, which is necessary to discuss.--Oursana (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

obviously you cannot look up "from" in a dictionary. I'd ask you to name the 3 people who agree with what you're proposing, but I clearly have nothing more to contribute to this. GOOD DAY. --moogsi (blah) 13:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Question is: Can the German file File:Altdorfer, Albrecht - Donaulandschaft mit Schloß Wörth.jpg, which is in Germany be put in Category:1520s paintings from Germany , yes or no.

No
- Oursana
- DenghiùComm
- G.dallorto

Yes
- Mattes OK (along with "~in Bavaria") --Mattes (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Moogsi
- Johnbod
- Boo-Boo Baroo

Please check if I got it right, not all statements are clear.--Oursana (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fishing of leisure[edit]

Title makes no sense in English. This should probably be moved to "Leisure fishing". Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'dd rather favor en:Recreational fishing or en:Sport fishing. --Foroa (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Should we have two categories: one for fishing as a hobby/leisure pursuit, the other for fishing as a sport? While both would fall under the fishing parent category, the former would fall within the Outdoor recreation category tree, while the latter would fall under the sports category tree. This would be a good opportunity to do the split. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that it will difficult to untangle the Category:Angling in a sports and a recreation part because it is basically the same; the sport adds only the competition dimension. --Foroa (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? We untangled the main cycling category from cycling (sport), which are also basically the same. When the image clearly pertains to the sport, put it in the sport category. But you are correct in that we perhaps do not necessarily need a separate category for leisure fishing (in which case this proposal should perhaps be a deletion rather than a rename).--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Our Lady Church (Oud-Zuid)[edit]

Vredeskerk (Amsterdam) should be the name of this category. Paulbe (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The present name of the category is confusing. The name of the church is "Vredeskerk". Also the square in front of it is called Vredeskerkplein. The name of the parish is "parochie Onze Lieve Vrouw Koningin van de Vrede", but that is not the name of the church. See: www.amsterdam.vredeskerk.nl Because there are more churches that are called Vredeskerk and that have pictures in Wikimedia, there should be an identifier, "(Amsterdam)" is appropriate for that purpose. ("Oud-Zuid" is also confusing, it is the name of a former city district/borough of Amsterdam, but also the name commonly used for a much smaller neighbourhood, the present district name is by the way Amsterdam-Zuid or "Zuid".) --Paulbe (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Johnbod (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Support moving to Category:Vredeskerk (Amsterdam) --moogsi (blah) 05:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Höhen streets in Austria[edit]

Nonsense category, Höhenstraße is a proper name, has nothing to do with anything like Höhen (neither a person, nor otherwise senseful word) Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the cats in Category:Streets in Austria by name are like this, and are also not useful because they each contain one subcat (except Kirchen). It would make more sense to put the streets directly into Category:Streets in Austria by name // moogsi^(blah) 14:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact there is only one other Höhenstraße in Austria if Google Maps is telling me the truth, so this category is demonstrably useless // moogsi^(blah) 14:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It makes *slightly* more sense if you look at Category:High streets, which has somehow needlessly become "High streets by country" // moogsi^(blah) 15:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Brittney Smith[edit]

This category should be deleted, as well all its images. There's no article in Wikipedia using any of them. All images have watermark, they're all a merchandise. Yanguas (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps nominate the images for deletion if you think they don't belong here. If the images aren't there, then deleting the empty category is trivial --moogsi (blah) 00:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:River Wye (Wales)[edit]

Merge to Category:River Wye Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, up to a point, but there are also categories Category:River Wye, Derbyshire and Category:River Wye, Buckinghamshire. Normally, we'd expect Category:River Wye to be a disambiguation cat but in view of previous discussions here and here, which have stalled, I'd suggest that Category:River Wye should be the disambiguation category and its content, along with that of Category:River Wye (Wales) be merged to Category:River Wye (Severn). There are also similarly named rivers outside the UK, see en:River Wye (disambiguation). Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Rodhullandemu. --Foroa (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I took my life in my hands and did this before this stalls again. It now looks like:

Category:River Wye (disambiguation)
- Category:River Wye (Severn) (former content of Category:River Wye is here)
  - Category:River Wye in Powys (former content of Category:River Wye (Wales) is here, can easily be upmerged or whatever)

moogsi (blah) 00:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:River Wye in Powys should probably be upmerged, there are plenty of pictures of the Welsh Wye in Category:River Wye (Severn)... --moogsi (blah) 00:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Surgical procedures[edit]

Mainly a semantic issue: "surgery" is a whole field, and also the act (performing a surgical procedure). There is lots of crossover between this category and Category:Surgery which it is a subcat of. The more important distinctions are disciplines and methods of surgery. I suggest it be merged into 'Surgery' --moogsi^(blah) 22:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:2013 in Spain[edit]

Useless category Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Extremely unhelpful nomination. Useless how? And Commons has a whole category structure by year, month, etc. Why randomly nominate 4 subcats from among thousands? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:2012 in the Canary Islands[edit]

Useless category Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:January 2013[edit]

Useless category Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:January 2013 in Spain[edit]

Useless category Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Currently used. --Javier ME (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sectioned drawings[edit]

Is this a duplicate of the containing Category:cross sections and even misspelled for “Sectional drawings”? I guess so and suggest to remove the contents of “Sectioned drawings” an its subcategories to the corresponding categories of “Cross sections”, and to put redirects to the empty categories. If I’m wrong, I would like to have elaborate descriptions there for distinguishing. Greetings Mapmarks (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several issues with these categories. Firstly they're obviously huge in scope, so should mostly (if not entirely) be meta-categories for other categories, not for media content directly. We can afford a lot of categorization here, both as depth and breadth, because otherwise we'll see huge unwieldy categories.

We should distinguish between "images of sectioned objects" (e.g. museum exhibits sawn in half) and "sectioned images of objects" (e.g. construction drawings). We may also wish to distinguish drawings (often highly abstracted to illustrate particular points) and photos (representational).

Clearly there is a use case and value to categorizing extensively by subject material (e.g. ships vs engines vs fruit). For some of these (again, ships and engines are obvious) we might even formally distinguish transverse sections from longitudinal sections, in separate categories.

I'm less fussed about the wording, so long as we also have a clear annotation on the category page as to the scope, and links to other perhaps more appropriate categories. "Sectioned" is correct though, rather than "sectional". A "sectioned" drawing is a drawing of an article, as sectioned. "Sectional" drawings imply instead that they're a drawing of an object that is itself constructed in sections. This is commonly done (again for ships) where a three-dimensional view shows the ship as if it had been sliced and pulled apart into functional compartments, but this isn't the same thing as drawing elevation views along particular planes through it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I agree to you, these categories need some clarification, and it was also my intention when I saw it the first time. But then I stumbled over this “Sectioned drawings” (= drawings of sectional views?) and thought it might be the same as “Cross sections” which are also drawings. Prior to a rearrangement in meta-categories etc., I wanted to discuss whether there is a needful distinction of the two categories?

Apart from this, I assume that it is clear that images of sectioned objects and the photographic pictures have to be removed. Like photos of half-cut fruits or sliced models of hybrid cars should sort elsewhere.

In addition all non-technical subjects here should leave, otherwise “Cross sections” must not have “Technical drawings” as super-category. A draft:

Technical drawings by type (meta)

Cross sections
- Cross sections by object (meta)
  - Cross sections of engines
  - ~~Cross sections of plants~~ (move to Category:Botanical diagrams or Category:Botanical illustrations)
  - Cross sections of ships
    - Longitudinal sections of ships
    - Transverse sections of ships
- Cross sections by type (meta)
  - 3D cross sections
  - Architectural sections
  - ~~Geological cross sections~~
  - Sectioned drawings
  - etc.

What do you think? -- Mapmarks (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:History of Cleveland, Ohio[edit]

This category had existed without controversy at Category:History of Cleveland since 2008 until it was moved today without discussion. It should be moved back. The earlier name is equally clear, more concise, and the added disambiguation is not necessary. Unfortunately, this sort of unilateral action is not unusual for User:Foroa. Some categories shift without notice, while other proposals are rejected with minimal explanation. I support giving administrators discretion when using their tools, but this eagerness to impose opinions and disregard others' views borders on abuse of those tools. - Eureka Lott 00:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A basic rule is that subcategory names follow the names of the parent category in a consistent way; we already have to rename and disambiguate hundreds of categories to solve conflicts, no need to add this waste of time to the subcategory level. --Foroa (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Two points: 1) This is only a waste of time according to you. The only reason we have this disambiguation in the first place is that you made another unilateral decision by turning Category:Cleveland into a disambiguation category. Disambiguation is often necessary, but your predisposition to disambiguate everything goes too far. 2) When there is a disagreement, you discuss it. You don't use your administrative tools to suppress dissent. For this community to thrive, it needs to operate on consensus, not administrative fiat. - Eureka Lott 14:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I am generally less a fan of disambiguation than Foroa, but in this case I think this is a no-brainer. As best as I can tell, Eureka Lott created Category:Cleveland as a redirect to Category:Cleveland, Ohio in 2008, and the latter has been the parent category since 2005. Unless I am missing something, the disambiguation of the parent category in the city, state format would not seem to have anything to do with Foroa. If the parent category is disambiguated with the name of the state, then so should Category:History of Cleveland, Ohio (and all the subcats for that matter).

In respect of the implications that Foroa's actions were somehow abusive or improper, the category work on Commons is massive, categories are moved everyday, and we can't open a discussion for every move that seems uncontroversial. Numerous contributors (not just admins) make this kind of move all the time. This move would have also struck me as uncontroversial clean-up. In this case, however, the move quite obviously turned out not to be uncontroversial, and that's why we have CFD. However, I am not sure that the complaints about who did what are helpful or necessary. Moreover, if there is an issue with whether disambiguation is needed or not, I would have thought the issue ought to have been raised on a more general basis in respect of the parent category. But absent a change in the parent category, I am not sure what the problem is with this move. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not as much of a no-brainer as you might think. It's actually fairly common to have categories for large U.S. cities that use the [city, state] construction for their main category while omitting the state name in their subcategories. For example, the categories for Indianapolis, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle all use this convention, for the most part. There are plenty of other examples, as well.

I'm afraid that Foroa's actions are relevant here. Foroa started by redirecting Category:History of Cleveland. I disagreed with the edit, so I reverted it. Instead of discussing the change, Foroa's response was to delete the category. I believe that's an inappropriate use of the mop and bucket. - Eureka Lott 02:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

We can all find a few random examples of bad categorization on the Commons. They do not serve as valid rationale for more bad categorization. As you know, Commons is a work in progress, and examples of categorization that are inconsistent with our policies, guidelines and practices can be found everywhere, some of them longstanding. You yourself do a lot of category work, so you know as well as anyone that the number of files and categories grows as fast as our ability to do clean up. Category names are supposed to be in English, for example, but I could find multiple examples of improperly named categories in other languages in minutes. Similarly, COM:OVERCAT is policy, but it wouldn't take any of us very much time at all to find multiple examples of files categorized in both the parent category and the subcategory. All the categories you've pointed to are a mess of inconsistent category naming, all in dire need of clean up. They are not really compelling examples, nor were they when you relied on them three months ago the last time someone tried to properly name a Cleveland category.

With all due respect, and I am not trying to be patronizing or rude here (since you are an experienced contributor), but I believe that you're fighting a losing battle if you pick a fight every time someone tries to make a Cleveland subcategory consistent with Commons naming practice. This is going to keep coming up. If you do not think disambiguation is required, then you should be initiating a CFD to move the parent category to the plain name. Absent that, I am not sure why you think these subcats merit a special exemption. The examples you've given aren't great. It's especially puzzling since some of the Cleveland subcats already are disambiguated, and a number of the ones that are not disambiguated will only remain that way as long as someone doesn't get around to subdividing Category:Cleveland, England by topic, which will presumably occur eventually. The history subcat in particular, I am guessing, would have not remained undisambiguated long (even if Foroa hadn't come along), because the category for the Cleveland in Australia is full of history photos.

As for who did what, I apologize that I had not appreciated that Category:History of Cleveland had been deleted by Foroa, and my comments above would have been somewhat different had I known that. However, I am always of the view that going on about allegations of bad conduct is rarely helpful in discussions such as these, and usually just takes away from one's substantive points and turns people off from the discussion (I say this as I haven't always followed this advice in the past). If you feel Foroa really stepped over a line, there are more appropriate forums for you to pursue that than CFD. What Foroa did, or didn't do, doesn't help your argument (your initial post is way more focused on Foroa than what the appropriate category name might be). You might have been better served by simply saying "Foroa ought not to have deleted Category:History of Cleveland when he knew I had concerns" and left it at that. Instead you seemed to accusing Foroa of having created the parent category disambiguation in the first place over your objections, which does not appear to be correct at all. At this stage, rightly or wrongly I feel nobody has behaved particularly well here. I shouldn't have that impression since we have two great contributors here and IMHO neither has committed any real error here. But that's the impression one leaves when the focus is on alleged misdeeds. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response. I do appreciate it. It looks like I failed to make myself clear above. When I listed those examples, I wasn't trying to make an WP:OTHERSTUFF-style argument. Rather, I was contending that the category construction is a de facto naming convention, and that the categories like Category:Sports in Los Angeles aren't incorrectly named. I realize that not everyone will share that opinion, but I don't think it's a decided issue. In the case of the Cleveland categories, I don't believe there's a need for disambiguation, regardless of what happens in the England and Queensland categories, just as Category:Statues in Boston remains undisambiguated while Category:Statues in Boston, Lincolnshire also exists.

As for Category:Cleveland's conversion to a disambiguation page, I wasn't trying imply that there was a renaming that occurred. I was merely pointing out another example of Foroa imposing unnecessary disambiguation. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, and apologize for creating confusion. However, there are many other times when Foroa's actions have bordered on the uncivil. If it was a one-time occurrence, I would have let it go. I'm no longer willing to accept being bullied. - Eureka Lott 16:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You're very kind to say that about my long-winded response.

But I have to say that a few examples of bad categorization does not a naming convention make. And the Boston category is apples and oranges, because the MA Boston is at the plain title. If you don't believe disambiguation is needed, suggest moving the parent category. Otherwise, you're fighting a losing battle (these subcats will eventually be renamed) and the wrong battle (resisting proper naming for subcats when your real issue is the parent cat). We are somewhat talking in circles here, so I will not take it as you agreeing with me if you simply decide not to respond. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Schloss Urach - Weisser Saal[edit]

Umbenennen in Weißer Saal. Mit Eszett. Doppel-s ist falsch. 89.182.204.91 13:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ich habe das Doppel-s sowohl im Dateinamen, als auch in der Kategoriebezeichnung verwendet, weil Commons ein internationales Projekt ist und das "ß" noch nicht einmal in allen deutsch sprechenden Ländern benutzt wird. --Rainer Halama (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Violet eyes[edit]

For me, all images on this categories show *blue* instead of *violet* eyes. So I would move all images to Category:Blue eyes and delete this category. Torsch (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actual violet eyes are extremely rare and caused by partial albinism. In fact you will have difficulty finding any pictures of them. Deep blue eyes can look violet in a certain light, and that is what's in this category. But they are still blue. The categorization aid chart shows "Violet" as a pink colour, which I think would be more accurately called pink or red eyes, ie the eyes of people with no pigment in their eyes whatsoever, so the only colour is provided by blood vessels. These are less rare, but it's still a pretty rare thing. So

Move these images to Category:Blue eyes.
Change the colour chart so it's more consistent.

I'd say the the term itself is too inconsistent in meaning to have its own category. --moogsi·(blah) 19:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Snow on trees[edit]

Category:Snow on trees‎, Category:Snowed-in trees, and Category:Snowy trees are synonymous and would best all be merged into one, at whichever name is most suitable. MPF (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I think that "Snowy trees" is the one most likely to be easily translated into other languages and thus make the content of the category the most accessible. "Snowed-in trees" (and for that matter its senior category "Snowed-in plants") is too idiomatic. However, I would like to see redirects used for the rejected terms. As a side note, I think redirects are used far too infrequently in Commons...and is probably why I created "Snow on trees" in the first place. Downtowngal (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Stationary engines[edit]

Ambiguous name and definition. The corresponding Wikipedia article does not limit itself to "small-scale early 20th century piston electricity generator". Should we not create such a category, and use the present one to mean what it says? Ariadacapo (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This is ambiguous, but that's a matter for disambiguation more than anything. We certainly have a need for both.

"Stationary engine" has two widespread meanings:

Engines that don't move.
Small, usually single cylinder, internal combustion engines used on farms etc. in the first half of the 20th century: post industrialisation, pre-rural electrification. Note that these are not generally electrical generators – they operate machinery directly, usually by belt drive.

Both of these have vast sourcing available.

"Engines that are stationary" should be a metacat, with no media directly within it. There are some obvious subcategories, each of which is itself enormous.

If this category needs the name to be disambiguated, then the name might be suffixed with a disambiguator in brackets (Your guess?). This category shouldn't be deleted or re-defined though, it already has 70 images and 13 sub cats, all of which are already in-line with the definition as given in the header. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Streets by name by country[edit]

This got me thinking about whether I understand what the category system is really for. How necessary is it when there is the more populated, useful and useable Category:Streets by city by country? This is a serious question because I'm still at the point where categories give me a bit of a headache. Categorizing streets by name first already seems kind of silly... subcats of Category:Streets by name hold little value but curiosity, which is ok I guess. Am I missing something here? // moogsi^(blah) 16:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I think you're somewhat misunderstanding what's going on. As long as we're categorising streets by name, it helps to split them up by country; we have "_____ by country" categories all over the place because they help to divide overarching categories. Remember that we can put a category into multiple parent categories; this and "streets by city by country" serve different purposes, so it doesn't hurt to have both. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mecca in 2009[edit]

Only contains some images of the category Category:Kaaba in 2009. Torsch (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Mecca is a city and Kaaba is a single building in that city. The city attracts about 1.5 billion Muslims from around the world, with the Kaaba building being the main attraction. It's likely that many people took pictures so I think it's ok to have both categories.--Officer (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Friedhof Heslach[edit]

Frihes is a nonsense copy of Friedhof Heslach Gerd Leibrock (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Where does "Frihes" appear? --rimshot^talk 22:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that someone has deleted this category or gallery. --Gerd Leibrock (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean this discussion is done? --rimshot^talk 21:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes --Gerd Leibrock (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Closed, original problem has disappeared. --rimshot^talk 21:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kiengirism[edit]

This term was invented by users in order to categorize symbols which were also invented by users (or which are simply images of cuneiform characters). It has no verifiable existence outside of commons. Many people attempt to push their invented terminology on Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is "policed" for such attempts, the problem seems to spill over to commons, which is not as visible, but where such stunts have a much better chance of staying online for years. --Dbachmann (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kiengirist symbols[edit]

This term was invented by users in order to categorize symbols which were also invented by users (or which are simply images of cuneiform characters). It has no verifiable existence outside of commons. Many people attempt to push their invented terminology on Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is "policed" for such attempts, the problem seems to spill over to commons, which is not as visible, but where such stunts have a much better chance of staying online for years. --Dbachmann (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Windmills in Streefkerk[edit]

This one makes the category tree much to deep, with Windmills in Molenwaard also present, ik makes sense to delete this category, and put the subcats in 'Windmills in Molenwaard'. Also, they won't end up in Streefkerk, but in Rijksmonumenten in Streefkerk then. Akoopal (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

you can't ever go too deep in categorization - Vera (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a mistake that they should end up isolated in category:Rijksmonumenten in ... Rijksmonumenten is a flat "label" category that should run in parallel with normal building categorisation. Look for example at the items in Category:Rijksmonumenten in Maastricht; there they understand the problem. --Foroa (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

@Vera: Yes you can, categories are to find things, if you don't exactly know where something is, you keep searching for something. I myself would for mills prefer to have everything at provence level, but I understand that for some municiples that is not handy. But to then go for places within municiples, that really makes things to hidden and not findable anymore. Akoopal (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see why with Windmills we should do things differently than, for example, churches. - Vera (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't do a lot for churches, but if I was I would say the same, either stop at municiple level, or skip that completely and do it only on place level. But I work on the windmill tree, and there I try to at least keep everything findable. Akoopal (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mayskiy Glade[edit]

empty category Odessey (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with this staying around. It's properly categorized, represents a real place, and it could conceivably have images in it in the future. --moogsi (blah) 10:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:AAAP[edit]

Improper use of a category page: Commons is not Wikipedia. Also see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 40#What to do with Category:AAAP ?. No one seems to understand what this category means. If only the original creator understands the purpose of the category, then I suppose that it should be deleted. Stefan4 (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I cannot understand the extremely long and confusing category page, so as a minimum it should be cut to something reasonable and understandable.

It makes no sense to invent a new unclear type of license that is hardly used, only by (probably) 2 persons, so unless it is cleaned up and becomes clear and there are clear wikipedia pages that document such a movement, I think we better delete it. --Foroa (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete unless someone can give a concise definition of this supposed license, and point to a Wikipedia article (in any language), which describes it, it needs to go. this appears to be a soapbox.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

日本語訳

あなたがたが、Wikipedianの諸氏よ、私の告発者らによっていかなる心証を持つに至ったかは私は存じません。私自身はと言うと、もう少しで自分が誰なのかわからなくなるところでした。それほどの説得力ある話を彼ら（告発者ら）はしました。けれども本当のことは何一つといっていいほど語りませんでした。--MOTOI Kenkichi(基建吉) (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

AAAPは私的なものではなく共有ライセンスです。私が亡くなったあとに、私について調べる人が困りますが、それで構いませんか？

#AAAP license is shared rather than private ones. When I died, but my timeline no archives don't find out about people in problem and trouble, it does not matter whether it you?I think that manga.References --MOTOI Kenkichi(基建吉) (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

あなたがたの会話を見ると、私に対するリンチに思うことが出来るが、善意に基づく判断か？

I think Not based on the good faith judgment!

This looking at the ignore my conversation.

Your Lynch to me?--MOTOI Kenkichi(基建吉) (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

いつまでも「納得」しない

ときに悪意ある編集者や、自説を何とか通したい編集者は、自分の主張や観点が否定された後もぐだぐだと固執し、いつまでも言い続け、他者の言葉を受け入れたり自らの過ちを認めたりすることを拒否して、いつまでも論争を続けようとします。そして、しばしばこのような編集者は、要点をはっきりさせようとしてなされた、他者のささいな発言を根拠にして、次なる攻撃や妨害的編集を続けようとします。

ウィキペディアは協力的で、善意に基づいた編集、そして合意の上に成り立っています。だからこそ、ある主張をしつづけることが常識的な程度を超え、方針ではこうであると明示されても、あるいは根拠に裏打ちされた意見を熟練した複数の編集者、管理者、調停者から示されても、「納得する」ことを意図的に拒否していることが明らかになった場合、納得の拒絶を継続することは、もはや正当性のある態度、方針に準拠している態度とはいえません。それは、自説を通したいがために合意形成の方針を悪用した、妨害行為です。

Σ/D＜逆に↑の提案者をこの違反として告発します。項目の熟読を要します--MOTOI Kenkichi(基建吉) (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:投稿ブロックの方針

とはいえ、なかには対話を拒否したり、明らかな悪戯行為をする人も見られます。投稿行動に対する改善依頼は利用者のノートページでの対話で著作権侵害の投稿は削除プロセスで、編集合戦は記事の保護で、非中立的な編集は中立化で対応するなどの手段があります。しかし、問題となる行動が継続され、ウィキペディアのプロジェクト進行に悪影響が及ぶ可能性が生じる場合には、こうした記事毎の対応ではなく問題のある利用者の投稿を禁止することで被害の拡大を食い止めることができます。これを投稿ブロックと呼びます。

対象だと思われます。少なくとも私は投稿意欲を失いましたので、明白な妨害行為と言えます。--MOTOI Kenkichi(基建吉) (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete Per Stephan & ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/アスキーアート保護協会. Takabeg (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Hate for pedophiles[edit]

Possibly rename to a more consistent "anti-" or "opposition to" category. djr13 (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC) (Some prior discussion on renaming: Category talk:Hate for pedophiles#Category naming.)

As was said in our discussion in 12:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC), the corresponding en:wiki article is en:Anti-pedophile activism. For such simple rename requests, {{move}} template is a better way than CfD. --ŠJů (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I opened this cfd as the rename seemed controversial. I'm not sure if "activism" is the best option here, as this is more imagery than activity. The activism equivalent of this would probably be Category:Demonstrations and protests against pedophilia which this category is currently a subcategory of. djr13 (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to find the best name for different types of such activities. However, the current name seems to be quite fitting for the current content which consists only of hateful stickers and writings. As soon as appear some different stuff (e. g. murders from hate or their victims, activists and anti-activists, independent researchers on this topic etc.) we can think about renaming the category or create another one. I think, the words "anti-" or "opposition to" hardly help to better aptness of the category name. --ŠJů (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Aerospace engineers[edit]

Many people in this category (the majority?) have nothing to do with aerospace, but are just plane people, e.g.

en.wiki has "Aircraft designers" but I feel like we're missing something here. Category:Aeronautical engineers for example moogsi (blah) 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

December 2012[edit]

Category:Identification[edit]

It is not clear for what purpose this category is intended: identification during pass port controls, identification of animal species, ... . It seems that most entries have ben categorized into this category by a bot. Torsch (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a mess as it stands now. So, I think can be deleted without any further delay. 更迅速 (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete Agreed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pythagorean tiling[edit]

I created this category as a subcategory of Category:Tessellations, in order to collect in one place images that include the Pythagorean tiling (a repeating pattern formed by two sizes of squares) and also to help put a little better structure on the many images in its parent category. User:Baelde disagrees with something about the category (perhaps related to its name? His objections come across as complete crankery to me but perhaps someone can make sense of them) and has almost completely depopulated it. A gallery of most of the images that were in the category but have been removed can be seen here, but others have been removed as well including File:A pattern of Pythagorean tiling.svg and File:A tiling and a proof of the Pythagorean theorem.svg. I would like to form a consensus on this category, so that I can settle this dispute with Baelde without continually reverting. The plausible options to me seem to be

Keep Category:Pythagorean tiling as it is named now, with the images from the gallery, and also remove each of those images from the categories that are parents of Category:Pythagorean tiling
Rename the category to a different name that satisfies the objections of Baelde (whatever those are), such as Category:Two-square tessellation (another name for the same pattern) and again put the images from the gallery into it
Delete the category and move all of the images still in it now into its parents

However, I don't see the status quo (four images in the category and the rest excluded, or alternatively continued edit-warring) as tenable. My own preferred option would be the first one: keep the category at its present name, to match the name of the Wikipedia article. (BTW, this has also been discussed recently at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, from which came the suggestion to take it here instead — until we get a consensus on how to handle the categories, the user issues are difficult to resolve.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A "Pythagorean tiling" is "a repeating pattern formed by two sizes of squares", as defined by David Eppstein. According to the current page of the category, such tilings can be a base for multiple proofs of the Pythagorean theorem. With traditional notations, here is the conclusion of the theorem: a ² + b ² = c ², where a, b, c are the side lengths of a right triangle, isosceles or not: a = b or a ≠ b. In any proof of the theorem through a tiling, a and b are at the same time the leg lengths of the right triangle and the sizes of the tiles: the sizes of the square elements of the tiling. And the proof also deals with the case where a = b (the case where the given triangle is isosceles). A proof with a ≠ b is not a complete proof of the theorem.
194.153.110.5 13:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

See, this is exactly the sort of crankery I was talking about. Why do you think there is any connection at all between special cases of a proof of a theorem and how to categorize patterns? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A mathematical classification must be rigorous. For example, in a context where a regular tiling of squares (where a = b) can also be called a "Pythagorean tiling", all geometric transformations that leave unchanged such a tiling compose a group which is different, depending on the number of sizes of tiles, one or two: see "Category:Wallpaper_group_p4. There is no constant definition of a "Pythagorean tiling" in mathematics, such definitions are used in specialized contexts.

A categorization of images must be understood by a general reader. A "two-square tessellation" is it necessarily periodic?
109.6.129.249 10:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for making category names self-explanatory for the mathematically ignorant (or intentionally obtuse)) reader; for instance, we have a category "squares", not "two-dimensional things with four equal sides and four equal angles". All I want is a category that can collect images that show the (unique) pattern in which the plane is tiled by squares of two different sizes, with no two equal squares sharing a full edge. That is a perfectly rigorous definition that has nothing to do with special cases of theorems about right triangles. We need to give the category a relatively brief name, and this pattern was called "Pythagorean tiling" by Nelson, so that's the name I use. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

What were your thoughts when you created a so problematic category, I try to guess. So I ask you for this or that, in order to ponder with you.

At first, my answer to my own question: no,
a two-square tessellation is not necessarily periodic. So an image with an aperiodic tiling by squares of two sizes must be outside the "Category:Wallpaper_group_diagrams". Such an image would be outside your eventual subcategory of "Category:Wallpaper_group_p4", of which the parent is "Category:Wallpaper_group_diagrams".

I see reasons for making category names as explicit as possible. Moreover, an introduction sentence on the category page can enlighten everybody as clearly as possible. Today, someone who searches images about the "group_p4" is disappointed, because "Category:Wallpaper_group_p4" contains numerous decorative images, without any beginning of explanation about this group of geometric transformations. In the public interest, categorizations must separate images without anything about mathematics, and other images where drawings can be a base for textual explanations about a mathematical subject, clearly indicated. For example, here is an image that is currently outside the "Category:Wallpaper_group_p4". Why? I think that an introduction sentence would be usefull on the page of "Category:Wallpaper_group_p4".

To prove the Pythagorean theorem through a tiling, we don't need a tiling that covers the entire Euclidean plane. Your introduction sentence perhaps talks implicitely about a tiling by squares of two sizes, unchanged by any geometric transformation of the "group_p4"?
I try to guess what images could be stored in your category.

An infinite two-square tessellation is not necessarily periodic.
Perhaps your eventual category could be named: "Category:Two-square_tessellation_group_p4", in order to be as clear as possible for learned readers… Do you see a few problems about your eventual subcategory of "Category:Wallpaper_group_p4"?
109.6.129.249 14:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope this long and unreasonable comment makes it obvious to everyone else why I have brought this issue to CfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Obvious source of problems: deny that others exist, while we are on Wikimedia.
109.6.129.249 12:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A mnemonic to construct a depiction
or a proof of the Pythagorean theorem.

All proofs or depictions of the
Pythagorean theorem are based on
a comparison of surface areas.

A connection between a jigsaw puzzle
and a periodic tiling.

How to name such periodic tilings, it is not the only problem with this subcategory of "Category:Pythagorean theorem".
I will not pretend to a false simplicity, therefore I will not vote below.

It would be a bad idea to hide images about the Pythagorean theorem among numerous images more or less connected
with infinite tilings, stored in a subcategory of "Category:Pythagorean theorem". The conclusion of the theorem
being an equality of surface areas, its proof cannot be based on infinite tilings, as said on the current article
"Pythagorean tiling" of Wikipedia, with the same error as on the current page of "Category:Pythagorean tiling".

— Baelde (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You make a case for keeping certain images in Category:Pythagorean theorem rather than relying on the sub-category Category:Pythagorean tiling to find them (I accept that and will revisit some of my recent edits). You also make a case for changing some of the text content of some articles (though I am not qualified to comment on this point). None of that affects whether the subject of this discussion, Category:Pythagorean tiling, might be useful for other visitors, for example categories are not intended to form a rigid tree hierarchy and sometimes it is appropriate to list an image both in a category and in one or more of its sub-categories. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: discussion of proposed changes to the lead section has been moved to a new section Lead text below

Keep at Category:Pythagorean tiling, to match the English Wikipedia article name, and repopulate accordingly (i.e. David Eppstein's option 1 above). A Google search shows clearly that the term is frequently used to refer to this kind of tesselation, and that there are no other common competing meanings. So there is nothing wrong with the current name. --Avenue (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep The description at the top of the category seems to correspond accurately with the use in cited books in the English Wikipedia article. It is quite a specific type image and yet has a large number of images in it, so it is well worth having a category and the category is of interest. Yes in mathematics one would always deal with two equal squares when dealing with two squares, however I don't see such arguments as relevant here, the category is for an interesting tiling and we are simply classifying for general use as normally done rather than trying to change the world like the Dictionnaire de l'Académie française. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep If I understand the objection aright, then something like a chequerboard tiling of squares can be seen as a Pythagorean tiling where a = b and so for the category to be a rigorous list, it needs to contain such tilings - without them it is not rigorous. I see two counter-arguments. Firstly, this can readily be accommodated by creating a category for such tilings (I think of them as quasiregular but that may not be a precise match), and then including that as a sub-category of Category:Pythagorean tiling. Even then, a category merely lists images uploaded, it is not intended to be and cannot be relied on to be a mathematically precise list of tilings, so the objection is not valid anyway. Or, do I misunderstand the objection? If so, and this can be explained, then I am open to changing my vote. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC) [update] Other objections suggest that the term "Pythagorean tiling" is not attested in the literature and/or can have different meanings in different contexts. However it is certainly attested for the current usage and, if other usages occur (as they do appear to, for example here), that just means that the Category may need some further disambiguation - and moreover could be a useful tool in disambiguating the term. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead text[edit]

I propose two changes on the page "Category:Pythagorean tiling":

adding an adjective "periodic" with a link to "Wallpaper group" on Wikipedia: …is a [[:en:Wallpaper group|periodic]] tessellation of the plane…
replacing "…the basis for multiple proofs of…" with "…a mnemonic to prove…": …and as a mnemonic to prove…

To understand the second change, see above and another image, showing another position of the grid relative to the periodic tiling (in pure geometry, an infinite number of positions are possible).
— Baelde (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word mnemonic. It usually refers to a sequence of words used to remember something. It has nothing to do with diagrams that can be used to construct proofs. As for your recent edit-warring to try to get these tilings called "jigsaw puzzles", I don't think there is much more to say than: just no. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We use a mnemonic to help remember something. For example, see the grid shown above can help us to construct a depiction of the Pythagorean theorem through puzzle pieces. You can choose another position of the grid relative to the tiling and you construct other puzzle pieces. Anyway, an infinite tiling cannot depict or prove the Pythagorean theorem.
— Baelde (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone who has never seen such a proof of the Pythagorean theorem could use one of these tilings to construct a proof, so the tilings are not simply mnemonic (an aid to memory), and your suggested wording is therefore inaccurate. There is nothing wrong with the existing wording ("…the basis for multiple proofs of…"). Your suggestion also seems quite tangential to the main discussion here. --Avenue (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a rather complicated connection between Pythagorean tilings and partial proofs of the Pythagorean theorem with puzzle pieces, when the given triangle is not isosceles. Either we want to explain this a little in the introduction, at least with a link to "Dissection puzzle" on Wikipedia, or we decide to say nothing about the Pythagorean theorem.
— Baelde (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be going far too deep for this page, whose main function is to list images uploaded. The lead already links to the Wikipedia article of the same name and that is enough. The sentence about what these tilings are used for is perhaps also useful, but the complications certainly do not belong here. I would be open to persuasion that the sentence could go, but at the moment it does seem useful. Also Baelde, please do stop warring. We all know you mean it and I at least respect that, there is no need to keep pushing. If a rules-minded admin came across all this you would be in real trouble. Let's get any changes agreed in detail before making them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

OK for the link to "Pythagorean tiling" on Wikipedia, never that was disputed. And then, it seems
you prefer a brief introduction: nothing about the Pythagorean theorem in the introduction…
— Baelde (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Baelde, what do you mean? You link to a diff where you try to lengthen the introduction, you say "nothing about the Pythagorean theorem in the introduction…" yet the introduction does already explain what it is. Could you explain more fully what you mean? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Second possibility written above: we decide to say nothing about the Pythagorean theorem in the introduction (in my opinion, a link to "Wallpaper group" is usefull in this introduction ).
— Baelde (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you just saying again that there are only two possibilities - adding the link to wallpaper patterns or deleting all mention of the pythagorean theorem? (My apologies for keeping asking, but if the English grammar is not precise I always see so many interpretations of the text, I am unsure what is meant: I never know if the author's logic is the same as mine.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
First change: an adjective "periodic" with a link to "Wallpaper group" on Wikipedia: …is a [[:en:Wallpaper group|periodic]] tessellation of the plane… Please Steelpillow and David Eppstein, do you agree?
— Baelde (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes to the word "periodic". I don't mind much either way about a link to Wallpaper group: one is, or should be, already in the main article on Pythagorean tilings - but on the other hand it would do little harm to add it here if people feel it helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. — Baelde (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Now a comment about the current definition:
"A Pythagorean tiling is a periodic tiling of the plane by squares of two different sizes, with no two equal squares sharing a full edge".
To me, "two square tiles sharing a full edge" means "two tiles being edge-to-edge", or "two squares having a common side".
If such two squares exist in the tiling, they are necessarily equal, therefore I had not changed the meaning by removing
these two words: "two equal". However, this definition will be more clear:
A Pythagorean tiling is a periodic tiling of the plane by squares of two different sizes, with no squares edge-to-edge.
— Baelde (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Other possibility:
A Pythagorean tiling is a periodic tiling of the plane by squares of two different sizes, where two contiguous squares have no common side.
Do you prefer the last sentence?
— Baelde (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, phrases such as "edge-to-edge" and "a common side" are not mathematically precise. Can edge-to-edge just mean aligned for the length of the shorter edge but the longer end protruding? Where does the language (as opposed to one's interpretation) forbid it? Can a short common side be appended by an extension for one of the squares? Where does the language (as opposed to one's interpretation) forbid it? The original phrasing, "two equal squares sharing a full edge," is precise and unambiguous, so I think it should be restored. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

To me, "two equal" is unsettling in the context, as explained above.
The wiktionary gives definitions of "edge", for example.
Assume that "common side" or "edge-to-edge"
are ambiguous for a general reader, don't forget
that numerous examples of "Pythagorean tilings" are exhibited,
numerous images are classified in the category. To write a useful description
with no word "side" or "common", here is another possible lead text.

A Pythagorean tiling is a periodic tiling of the plane by squares of two different sizes, where any square is surrounded by four contiguous squares of another size.

— Baelde (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You have explained what you prefer, but not why you find ' "two equal" is unsettling in the context.' "edge" is fine, just not "edge-to-edge"where edges may or may not be equal. Likewise, "common" is fine in the right context, just not in "common side" where sides may or may not be equal. One purpose of the lead is to explain why just these images and no other are allowed. An imprecise definition may lead to people adding the wrong kinds of image. The smaller squares are not contiguous around a larger one. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Two squares sharing a full edge are necessarily equal, yes or no?
If yes, why it would be precised "no two equal squares sharing a full edge", instead of "no squares sharing a full edge"?
If no, what does mean "sharing a full edge"?
What does mean the adjective "contiguous"?
If a square is defined as a surface, two squares are contiguous
if and only if their intersection contains more than one point and is included in one of their sides.
What does mean the category name "Category:Wallpaper group p4"?
My last description evokes an infinite number of rotations that leave unchanged a Pythagorean tiling. Perhaps you prefer the following description.
A Pythagorean tiling is a periodic tiling of the plane by squares of two different sizes, where any square is contiguous to four squares of another size around it.

— Baelde (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I am not sure where all these numbered points are going.

I did not comment on "full edge". But it is not clear: can two squares of different sizes share a "full edge" of the smaller square? I don't see why not. So the wording becomes imprecise because it might mean that or it might not.
"contigous" means that there is a boundary between the one and the other, which one may cross with no disturbance as it were. For example two lanes of a motorway are contiguous but two carriageways are not. If you say that say four things are contiguous, that means they are like four lanes of a carriageway. If you want to say that they are contiguous with a fifth thing then you need to say so explicitly. In the case of a tiling, the small squares adjacent to a larger square are not contiguous (as you wrote), but they are contiguous with the central square (which you did not write).
I did not comment on the category you mention. Your new suggestion is not quite grammatical. I think you mean (and apologies but that yellow was horrible):

A Pythagorean tiling is a periodic tiling of the plane by squares of two different sizes, where any square is contiguous with four squares of another size around it.

But that is rather clumsily put. We do not usually use words like "contiguous." Worse, I can put four half-size squares "around" it, top and bottom, and add two more large squares either side. That meets your definition. So, "with no two equal squares sharing a full edge" remains precise, succinct and understandable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We have not to imagine all what does not exist in a Pythagorean tiling. About the preposition used after "contiguous" (not "contigous"), I have sometimes read "to", but you don't like "contiguous". Perhaps everybody will be happy after reading this.
— Baelde (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, again, the word "abuts" is not commonly usually used in these situations and your phrasing as written is not grammatical. I think it best if you leave the finer phrasing to someone who is both an experienced mathematician and a native English-speaker. I will change it back much as it was because that text was worked out by such editors and I cannot see how to improve on it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Most images stored in "Category:Pythagorean tiling" have nothing to do with the Pythagorean theorem, no reason to see "Category:Pythagorean tiling" as a subcategory of "Category:Pythagorean theorem". I think that we have to remove "Category:Pythagorean theorem". Please Steelpillow and David Eppstein, do you agree?
— Baelde (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If silence means consent, "Category:Pythagorean tiling" will not be a subcategory of "Category:Pythagorean theorem": we will remove "Category:Pythagorean theorem", because in general a Pythagorean tiling has nothing to do with the Pythagorean theorem.
— Baelde (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. By my count, only 4 of the 19 images here are overtly about the Pythagorean theorem. So while the topic isn't completely unrelated, the relationship isn't tight enough to make Category:Pythagorean theorem appropriate for the full category. Of course it can be added directly to any of the images here that do relate to the theorem. --Avenue (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. In this gallery, you find images that had been stored in "Category:Pythagorean tiling",
and most of them do not deal with the Pythagorean theorem.
— Baelde (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your post until now. Yes, you are right to remove it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Towers by height[edit]

Most, if not all, of the subcategories use the grammar "Category:n-meters towers", but that is grammatically incorrect. For example, Category:127-meters towers should be listed as Category:127-meter towers. Fungus Guy (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Support move to proper English names like "127 meter towers" or "127-meter towers", or even "127m towers" if the spelling becomes an issue. "127-meters" as an adjective is definitely improper English. --Closeapple (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Distributor (sternwheeler)[edit]

We have three related categories. Category:Distributor (ship, 1908) -- a steamboat on the Skeena River, Category:Distributor (ship, 1920) -- a steamboat on the Mackenzie River, and Category:Distributor (sternwheeler). Currently, Category:Distributor (sternwheeler) redirects to Category:Distributor (ship, 1908). But Category:Distributor (ship, 1920) was also a sternwheeler, so I question whether this redirection isn't simply confusing, and a potential source of mistakes. Should it be removed? Geo Swan (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok for me. -- Docu at 17:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Look what I have made of it. --Stunteltje (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Gun turrets[edit]

We have Category:Naval gun turrets -- one of three basic kinds of gun turrets. We didn't have Category:Gun turrets of armoured vehicles or Category:Gun turret fortifications. I just created Category:Gun turret fortifications, and prior to replacing Category:Gun turrets in subcategories like Category:Maginot Line cloches and Category:Maginot Line turrets I thought I should pause and call for discussion. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! Magnus242 (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it has been six months. I moved the 100 plus images in Category:Gun turrets into one of the subcategories: Category:Naval gun turrets, Category:Aircraft gun turrets‎, Category:Gun turret fortifications‎ or Category:Gun turrets of armoured vehicles‎. Geo Swan (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Canal locks in Canada[edit]

Currently this category has over five dozen images -- mainly with very poor indications in the image name where the canal lock exists. So I created Category:Canal locks on the Rideau Canal and Category:Canal locks on the Welland Canal. I am calling for discussion as to whether locks that are clearly on a particular canal should be moved to a specific category for locks on that canal -- leaving only unidentifiable locks in the parent category. Cheers. Geo Swan (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, that is the whole idea about deepening categories. Note that many canal locks are on a river (boundary) too as many rivers have parts that are managed like a canal. --Foroa (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is standard. Keep up the good work. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Restaurant drive-through food menus[edit]

I think that the category "Restaurant drive-throughs" should be enough to cover this types of photos. This category is a bit confusing to me.--Ezzex (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Support, keep it simple.Carolus (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Travaux de la branche vers Vieux-Condé de la ligne B du tramway de Valenciennes en décembre 2012[edit]

Commons categories must be in English - this is a Commons rule 88.64.113.178 14:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

C'est une règle pratique mais pas obligatoire. Ce n'est donc pas la peine encore une fois de vouloir interférer dans mon travail, alors que j'ai systématiquement refusé par le passé. C'est quand même curieux que c'est à chaque fois une IP qui lance cette procédure. Bref, va te faire foutre. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Such categories should be in English, actually. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 15:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

C'est non, et c'est non discutable, et si quelqu'un vient à en changer le nom, je ferais valoir mon droit de retrait sur toutes mes images. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:NCAA logos[edit]

There may be some value to this category, but I think it's poorly named. Its name implies logos related specifically to the NCAA organization, but it actually contains logos pertaining to members of the NCAA. We already have Category:Logos of universities and colleges in the United States, so I'm not sure what purpose this one is supposed to serve. --Powers (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I followed the "idea" of how this type of logos are categorized under the Category:National Football League logos, with the only difference of using initials NCAA instead of National Collegiate Athletic Association, as the main category is Category:NCAA. The purpose to create a new category different from Category:Logos of universities and colleges in the United States was to put together the athletic programs' logos (not the same as the seals or academic logos) and to also put together those who are in the NCAA (maybe another for NAIA will have to be created). --Banderas (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the semantics, I think. Sports programs are not members of the NCAA; entire universities are. So if you mean "athletics logos of universities and colleges in the United States", then that's what the category should say. I can't think of any good reason to separate NAIA and NCAA logos in separate categories. (And I think an argument could be made that the NFL category should be "National Football League team logos".) Powers (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Port Louis (harbour)[edit]

move to Port Louis Harbour Kingroyos (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard[edit]

I raised a bug report here to have this category re-done by upload month and year, so that it would be easier to navigate files and the like. But looking at Riilke's comments there, at the moment all this category demonstrates that Commons can handle large categories. So in aid of this bugzilla request, I suggest that we either delete the category or have it split it up into month and year subcategories, and have developers implement those changes at the earliest possibility. russavia (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete unless someone can point out why this category is still useful. Multichill (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete per Multichill. --A.Savin 10:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete, no longer useful. Kaldari (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Question I wonder if anyone uses it for category intersections or similar? Browsing is not the only way of using a category. --99of9 (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Many things rely on this category, including (if I remember correctly) WikiStats and anyone debugging UploadWizard. --Nemo 11:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep then (but I'm also fine with Jarekt's suggestion below). --99of9 (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete superfluous and irritating during maintance work. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete per Multichill. - Jmabel ! talk 19:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep until it is investigated and found that it is not used for tech. reasons, scripts, etc. as stated in comments above. If we do delete it and it makes a big mess it will be irreversable I assume.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep until there is a suitable replacement for tracking basic stats about upload provenance. This category was not only implemented to track down bugs from the UploadWizard, but also to get basic stats about how many files are uploaded with it. It was never meant for browsing. AFAIK there is currently no other way besides categories to know whether a file was uploaded using Special:Upload, UploadWizard, a mobile app, a third-party app using the API, etc (or at least, there wasn't one when UploadWizard was implemented). If there is now a better way to do that, I'm fine with transitioning to it, but until then the category provides unique information. I don't see a reason to delete it, or to split it by month, for that matter. guillom 14:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep. As noted above, this category is used for statistical purposes. For example, the "Upload activity levels" table here checks for the existence of this category and would immediately break. Splitting by month/year would needlessly complicate statistical analysis.--Eloquence (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have run into problems adding maintenance categories to templates that others found distracting. After some talk consensus was reached that a better way to track thing is though Category:Empty tag templates, which can be easily intersected with categories through tools like CarScan and CatScan2. May be blank template {{Uploaded with UploadWizard}} would be a less visible option for tracking? --Jarekt (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm also fine with this method. --99of9 (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Tendentially keep because, as Guillom pointed out, this category is of no use for manual exploration (like ie browsing), but useful for analisys. Unless of course there's a better way for analyzing uploads made through Wizard. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 09:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep; category is used for statistical purposes. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete - meaningless category Rauenstein 21:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Useless and irritating. Categories should not be statistical tools, I guess there are better ways. --Indeedous (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's useless; people have explained above how it's used. There are tons of maintenance and meta categories on Commons, and the classification by upload tool is just one example. I still haven't seen a good argument explaining the harm or why it's "irritating". guillom 08:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete Completely useless because in the long run every file will have been edited so often that the original influence of the UploadWizard is completely gone.--Leit (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep per Eloquence. Recommend closing admin disregard "delete" votes that state simply that the category is useless, since Eloquence has stated clearly what its utility is. -Pete F (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete and go with Jarekt's invisible template option above. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 17:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I really can't see the benefits of an empty-tag template over a hidden category. I can see the drawbacks, though: An empty-tag template doesn't provide a count of the files; the category does. And converting the category to a template would mean editing ~2.5 million file pages. For... what, exactly? guillom 08:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Claire E. Ballante[edit]

4 what we need a cat 4 this person? She is not important enough to relevant on commons Sanandros (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple photographs of the person on the Wikimedia Commons, therefore a category would be helpful to find those aforementioned photographs. This is frequently done with countless other people and subjects with multiple media files on Commons, regardless of their "notability". Best regards, cheers! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Former players of France national rugby union team[edit]

I opened the discussion about a single category but it must be meant as extended to similar ones like i.e.:that:

and so on.

Said in brief, I do not understand at all the reason of such subcategories of Players of XXX. The main reason why such subcategories are deprecated is that they are very likely to be untrue unless constantly checked to see whether one is a «current» or a «former» player of…; thus they depend on human factor which cannot always be granted.

Also, a note specific for the category subject of this discussion, and for other similar regarding the national teams: unless a player is definitely retired we could not anyway speak about «Former players of XXXX national rugby union team» because as long as they is still active they is eligible for playing for the national team, thus this category, unless it contains only retired people, is likely to be untrue. But even if it contained only names of retired sportspeople, is not of Commons' scope to distinguish between «former» and «current» whatsoever. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 09:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I created these categories so I kind of disagree :)

These categories are useful : when you take pictures of your favorite sport team, it is very easy to identify "your" players. But knowing who the players from the other team can be very difficult; one way is to look at the already uploaded and identified pictures and compare : this process is really much more easy when you have only to look at players who are currently in the team istead of all the players who once played for a particular team. For the Stade toulousain, you have in the category "players" the current coachs of the team, which is kind of weird imho.
These categories don't need more work than the current vanilla version with only "players"; let say player P is moving from team A to team B. With the vanilla version, you just have Category:Players of team B in one click. With the former/current version, you need one click to multicat, one click for adding Category:Current players of team B, one click for changing Category:Current players of team A to Category:Former players of team A, and one click to validate. I don't think these three more clicks are going to be sooooo painful.
Category:Former players of national team doesn't make sens. I agree with this part :)
Common sens should rule : of course, I do not suggest we should run a bot to cup all "players from team A" cats in "former players of A" and "current players of A" : I just say that sometimes, when we have lot of former players, it makes sens so we shouldn't delete these categories.

Léna (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Except for national teams where I'm not sure there is a point of having such divisions, it's useful and provides information on categories like Category:Former players of SU Agen, why should we removes that ? --PierreSelim (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Lena regarding the usefulness of these categories for clubs but they are useless for national teams as there is no financial contract involving the players and their national side. Udufruduhu (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Idem :) --PierreSelim (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the main point has not been faced yet. Commons is a project with no past or present. For example Guy Novès is classified both as player and coach of Toulouse, and the thing should not be weird. The category must reflect what one is - or has been -, not when and how long. Another, not bypassable, point is that such subcategories require high maintenance: their accuracy stands in the good will of the wikipedian that keeps them updated. Once I categorize someone as Player of Stade toulousain he will always be; if I categorize someone as Current player of Stade toulousain you will always need someone who checks whether such player is still a player of Stade or less. Thus a category like Current player of... is likely to become untrue soon, or at least we cannot be sure that is true at every time, just because it has not steady ground, but temporary. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and Player of XX is even more likely to be untrue or unaccurate... We are working on a wiki, should we remove clubs from players article on wikipedia because it's likely to become untrue ? --PierreSelim (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That can also be true, but in such case the question would be : is playing / has he played with the club X? If so, you don't need to check again whether he doesn't play any longer there. Maintenance level is minimum in such case. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 18:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Buses in Comarca Lagunera[edit]

Delete orphaned photos please, I prefer upload these photos to Facebook. guerreritoboy (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Mackenzie Basin[edit]

The name is a trigger for confusion, I suggest it be renamed Category:Mackenzie Basin (New Zealand) -- as I am not the first person to assume it was a category for the drainage basin of the Mackenzie River -- the 2nd largest river in North America. When I opened this discussion File:Trout River rapids close to Sambaa Deh Falls Mackenzie Highway, NWT.jpg was in Category:Mackenzie Basin when it should belong in Category:Mackenzie River, or one of its subdirectories. Geo Swan (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

While I am not opposed to the idea, I suggest that discussion should happen first on en:Mackenzie Basin, and Commons then follow suit. Ingolfson (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, en:Mackenzie Basin already has a disambiguation "hatnote" informing readers that the Mackenzie River is on the other side of the world. So, could you please explain what you think shold happen at en, prior to making this change here? Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Jim Turilli[edit]

Jim Turilli is a non-public figure, a friend of Alan Light who appears in many of the images from Light's Flickr photostream, and doesn't require a category dedicated to him. Rrburke (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment A number of photos in this category show notable people and events in addition to Turilli. If the category is deleted, images within the category should not be bulk deleted, but rather evaluated individually. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this person does not appear to deserve a category, but that some of the images here should be kept. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Rick Best[edit]

Rick Best is a non-public figure, a friend of Alan Light who appears in many of the images from Light's Flickr photostream, and doesn't require a category dedicated to him. Rrburke (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:School lunch rooms[edit]

Proposing to merge and redirect to Category:School cafeterias, but I want to make sure that there isn't a regional use in which a "lunch room" is just one type of cafeteria or "cafeteria" isn't just one kind of lunch room. OK to consider these exactly the same, instead of making one a subcategory of the other? Closeapple (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the terms mean approximately the same thing. (Cafeteria: "a lunchroom or dining hall, as in a factory, office, or school, where food is served from counters or dispensed from vending machines or where food brought from home may be eaten." Dictionary.com). (Lunchroom: "1. a room, as in a school, where light meals or snacks can be bought or where food brought from home may be eaten. 2. a luncheonette." Dictionary.com)

Perhaps there are subtle differences. I don't a strong view either way but prefer School lunch rooms slightly as it's use seems more confined to schools. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The main reason I chose "cafeteria" as the target is because it's the word used for the similar concept in non-school environments also, and might be more familiar to non-native English speakers. I think they are, when considered across all schools, the same term. Where I grew up in the Midwestern U.S., we used "lunchroom" in grade school (even though it was actually the gym), but in high school "cafeteria" was used a lot. (In grade school, "cafeteria" to me meant a place grown-ups went to eat. If I'd heard "cafeteria" used for a school when I was in grade school, I would have assumed it meant a lunchroom for teachers and staff.) But I was hesitant to merge without a discussion because (1) schools sometimes serve meals other than lunch now (particularly breakfast in some U.S. state), and (2) some schools now have more than one area to eat, and maybe designate the biggest one with one name or the other. However, (1) I suspect that breakfast usually gets served in the same room as lunch and that "lunchroom" could be the name for that room at any particular school; (2) I don't have any evidence that a school with multiple places to eat tends to name a "lunch room" (the main one?) as one of many "cafeterias" or tends to name a "cafeteria" (the one where the food is served from?) as one of many "lunch rooms". I think you're right that they mean the same though. For example: Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) has 4 cafeteria/lunchroom areas and distinguishes them by calling the main one the "food court" and the 3 smaller ones "commissaries": Category:Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) cafeterias (a category name I invented) has pictures. --Closeapple (talk) 09:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge with "School cafeterias". — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Jean Cam at Tonnerres de Brest 2012[edit]

In general, categories for location have the format "Ships in <location>" (for events: "Ships at <event>"). Subcategories for specific ships at locations and events are not created. This makes it easier to browse ships by location/event and by name. When browsing categories for specific ships, most images can easily be found.
Images in this category were already sufficiently categorized by adding them into "SNSM at Tonnerres de Brest 2012" and "SNS 065 Jean Cam (ship, 1988)". Thus this category is not needed.
In addition, the category doesn't follow the naming convention for ship categories. -- Docu at 09:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC), edited 09:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case the images of the ship are in two sequential categories. This is even not in line with the general convention. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That's actually my doing. In terms of "SNS 065 Jean Cam (ship, 1988)", it doesn't matter if the images are also elsewhere, but it's probably preferable to not create "Jean Cam at Tonnerres de Brest 2012" in the first place.

I'm aware that it's tempting to follow the general sub-sub-subcategory creation and make categories like "Side view of Jean Cam in motion at Tonnerres de Brest 2012 on July 18", but it makes the general structure more complicated to navigate. -- Docu at 10:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

My purpose when i created this category was very simple.. On one side, i want to avoid a megafull category "ships at Tonnerres de Brest 2012" with more than 15OO pictures in it, which is not usable.. and another side, i want to put the pictures of this ship in his own category.. So i decide to create a sub-category which is common to both.. in this way people who will search from one or other side will find what they want. For me, that's the purpose of categories.. finding what you want. I understand that there was not ships subcategory with "this ship at this event". The purpose of the other category "snsm at Tonnerres de Brest 2012" was to present another way to find the pictures related to this specific french organisation and will include not only pictures of boats but also pictures of people for example. I hope you may find a better way to do that than putting redondant categories ? I am open for suggestions ---Strogoff- ^(talk) 11:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Purpose 1: "put the pictures of this ship in his own category" => add to Category:SNS 065 Jean Cam (ship, 1988)

Purpose 2: "avoid a megafull category "ships at Tonnerres de Brest 2012"" => add to "SNSM ships at Tonnerres de Brest 2012", even "SNSM at Tonnerres de Brest 2012" could do IMO.

One could debate the 2nd purpose, as we still have an equivalent category "Tonnerres de Brest 2012 - Total" with mostly images of ships.

Even if you add an image just to "Tonnerres de Brest 2012" and "SNS 065 Jean Cam (ship, 1988)", you could still find an image from the event (Special:Search/Tonnerres de Brest 2012 Jean Cam) and from the ship category. -- Docu at 12:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]

Category:MAN Trucks (Poland)[edit]

Misleading category name: what is the purpose of this category? Does it "collect" images of MAN trucks photographed in Poland or does it "collect" images of MAN trucks produced in Poland? Nevertheless, a more meaningful and a more comprehensible category name should be chosen High Contrast (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cities and villages in Simferopol Raion[edit]

Удалить как пустой дубль категории Kizilovoye kosun (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Not empty. Which category does it duplicate? --rimshot^talk 12:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Remove as empty.--kosun (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Catherine yronwode[edit]

Category:Catherine Yronwode already exists, and is correctly capitalized, as per WP. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct capitalization per the person's self-created name is "catherine yronwode". "Catherine Yronwode" I think would be better described as "conventionally" capitalized rather than inherently "correct". As to "already exists", the correct small case category predated the forced capitalization version by some 4 years. If we decide not to allow the person's own preferred name, at least it should be left as a redirect. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed she uses the lower case. The WP article has her as upper case, though-should we try to be consistent, in either direction? I guess i am neutral, but simply want to make sure we dont have BOTH categories around. a redirect either way makes sense of course.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Paintings with signatures (lower right)[edit]

one of the many silly and useless categories by this user. it gets worse and worse. 89.247.156.147 21:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. It's quite an achievement, being both so ridiculously overspecific (why do we need different categories for signatures in different places) and too broad to be useful for navigation or categorization (how many paintings do you think have been signed in this conventional way, compared to the small number actually in the category). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Chandra Shekhar Singh[edit]

This category should be moved to Category:Chandra Shekhar as it is the more common name. Check page titles at en:Chandra Shekhar and hi:चन्द्रशेखर to confirm. Lovy Singhal (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Support Commons is not the place to discuss. So this category have to be moved to Category:Chandra Shekhar per en::Chandra Shekhar in English Wikipedia. Takabeg (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose quite a common name, needs disambiguation anyway, see en:Chandra Shekhar Azad, en:Chandra Shekhar Dubey and on Commons --Foroa (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment to Foroa: Here is not the place to discuss on naming conventions. At present, the title is en:Chandra Shekhar in English Wikipedia. If you want to oppose this proposal, go to en:Talk:Chandra Shekhar and request moving. Takabeg (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Commons has plenty of different naming rules and we have to be much more strict about disambiguations. --Foroa (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pales edged[edit]

Correct name of category is Pales fimbriated, not edged. Edged is not an heraldic term. Kiltpin (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Pigeons in art[edit]

There is a Category:Doves in art, too. Aren't doves and pigeons the same? So both Categories should merge in to one

move Category:Doves in art to Category:Pigeons in art or
move Category:Pigeons in art to Category:Doves in art or
merge Category:Doves in art and Category:Pigeons in art to Category:Doves and Pigeons in art or Category:Pigeons and Doves in art

Same request goes for the Subcategories Category:Pigeons in heraldry and Category:Doves in heraldry --84.181.55.190 16:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as Heraldry is concerned, I think that they should be merged in one category of pigeons, with 2 exceptions, if the blazon specifically calls for it. The 2 being "The dove of peace" and "a dove descending from (the) heaven(s). Kiltpin (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I clearly propose to merge Doves to Pigeons. -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 18:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I quote ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ. --Massimop (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Addition[edit]

because so far it goes for Doves to Pigeons with the exception of Christian Symbolic (may that go for Islamic, too?). Here are some other Categories to fit with it:

Category:Doves on stamps --> Category:Pigeons on stamps
Category:Eucharistic doves --> Category:Eucharistic pigeons
Category:Flags with doves --> Category:Flags with pigeons
Category:Doves in Islamic art --> Category:Pigeons in Islamic art (???)
Category:Mosaics of doves --> Category:Mosaics of pigeons
Category:Paintings of doves --> Category:Paintings of pigeons (there are a lot with Christian symbolic: --> Category:Artworks of the Holy-Spirit-Dove or Category:Paintings of the Holy Spirit as a dove/Category:Paintings with the Holy Spirit as a dove)
Category:People with doves in art --> Category:People with pigeons in art
Category:Reliefs of doves --> Category:Reliefs of pigeons
Category:Stained glass windows of doves --> Category:Stained glass windows of pigeons !! they are all of symbolic character !! divide into two categories?
- Category:Stained glass windows of doves in Christianity
- Category:Stained glass windows of the dove of peace ???
Category:Statues of doves --> Category:Statues of pigeons
Category:Symbolic doves --> Category:Symbolic pigeons
- Category:Doves in Christianity --> Category:Symbolic doves in Christianity ???
- Category:Dove with olive branch --> Category:Pigeons with olive branch or Category:The dove of peace, so it is clear that the Symbol counts
  - Category:Doves with olive branch in heraldry --> Category:Pigeons with olive branch in heraldry/Category:The dove of peace in heraldry
  - Category:Dove with olive branch on stamps --> Category:Pigeons with olive branch on stamps(Category:The dove of peace on stamps
Category:Doves in heraldry --> Category:Pigeons in heraldry
- Category:Doves with olive branch in heraldry --> Category:Pigeons with olive branch in heraldry
- Category:Doves in crest --> Category:Pigeons in crest (there is only one file, so is it really necessary?)
Category:Dove repellents --> Category:Pigeon repellents

Exception[edit]

1) a dove descending from (the) heaven(s)[edit]

The only exception so far is the Dove as a religious symbol for the Holy Spirit. And these Categories should all become part of Category:Doves in Christianity that may be named Category:Symbolic doves in Christianity, Category:Doves as Christian Symbol or Category:Doves with Christian symbolism, something like that.

and may refer to

Category:Paintings of doves --> Category:Paintings of pigeons (there are a lot with Christian symbolic: --> Category:Artworks of the Holy-Spirit-Dove or Category:Paintings of the Holy Spirit as a dove/Category:Paintings with the Holy Spirit as a dove) --84.181.61.154 15:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

2) The dove of peace[edit]

Category:Dove with olive branch --> ~~Category:Pigeons with olive branch or~~ Category:The dove of peace, so it is clear that the Symbol counts --84.181.61.154 15:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Doves with olive branch in heraldry --> ~~Category:Pigeons with olive branch in heraldry or~~ Category:The dove of peace in heraldry
- Category:Dove with olive branch on stamps --> ~~Category:Pigeons with olive branch on stamps or~~ Category:The dove of peace on stamps

Category:Fesses wavy in heraldry[edit]

The sub-categories of 2, 3 and 5 fesses are incorrect. The diminutive of the fess is the bar. They should be 2, 3 and 5 bars. There can only be 1 fess. Kiltpin (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Trams in Zittau (1902)[edit]

This cat should be deleted. The name is too specific. "Tram in Zittau" is enough. W like wiki (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Trams in Zittau (1904-1919)[edit]

This cat should be deleted. The name is too specific. "Tram in Zittau" is enough. W like wiki (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Die Kategorie ist deshalb so speziell, weil es nur von 1904 bis 1919 einen öffentlichen Nahverkehr mit Straßenbahnen in der Stadt Zittau gab. Die Straßenbahn von 1902 ist nur Ausstellungsobjekt. Die Kategorie 1904–1919 könnte also genauso gut Städtische Straßenbahn Zittau heißen und die von 1902 Oberlausitzer Gewerbe- und Industrieausstellung. Ich war mal so frei und habe Category:Oberlausitzer Gewerbe- und Industrieausstellung erstellt. Ob eine Category:Städtische Straßenbahn Zittau zum Unternehmen sinnvoll ist, mögen andere entscheiden. --PigeonIP (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Städtische Straßenbahn Zittau ist ne gute Idee, habe einen entsprechenden Rename-Antrag gestellt. --W like wiki (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Frescos in Maser (Italy)[edit]

this category is not necessary because I see no other frescoes in Maser than in Villa Barbaro; the subcat is enough Oursana (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? In this moment Commons haven't any images of frescos in the municipality of Maser but the church ceiling of San Paolo is a fresco, I'm just waiting to find freely licensed images online or going in person to take some pictures. And if you want to cancel because now there is still nothing doing well but there is nothing to be included in the future is a mistaken idea. IMHO I think there exists other frescoes in addition to those cited in the bibliography or in tourist brochures. Regards :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

=== Category:Domesticated pigeon breeds === ~~It should be named Category:Pigeon breeds like Category:Pig breeds, Category:Horse breeds, Category:Sheep breeds... --84.181.48.6 10:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)~~

maybe Category:Fancy pigeons is better, see Category talk:Domesticated pigeons. Thanks, 79.197.126.187 16:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Domesticated pigeons[edit]

I'd like to implement a new system of Subcategories in the Category:Domesticated pigeons as described on its talkpage: Category talk:Domesticated pigeons, --79.197.126.187 16:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This category is too crowded : most of pigeons are not domesticated and however live in dovecotes; they are not prisonners. Many files/categories should be moved to Category:Pigeons, I think... Jack ma (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Some pigeons you mention are known as feral pigeons (living in parks, towns, etc.; mostly next to people). There are a lot of pigeons bread for a special purpose like exhibition or flying competions (or to provide meat). They may be no "prisoners", too. Today, most pigeons held captive are so because of the environment. Too much birds of prey or people in the neighborhood who don't like having pigeons next to where they live ("airrats"). It started in Centraleurope in the 70s and now breeds know for there flying ability don't do it anymore...

As for the Category is too crowded: that is exactly one reason I wanted to get it sorted. To get feral pigeons (wild and semi wild ones) more separate from bread ones (by purpose). I began with sorting feral pigeons and unidentified breeds, to get started (before that were hundreds of files of feral as well as fancy pigeons in the Category:Domesticated pigeons). But it is definitely not done yet and I'd liked to get some input from others. What they would do.

One example: There are many files of feral pigeons and I started to sort them by country (because there are some regional differences in appearance, even no massive ones. - compare Malaysia and the USA for example -) But this can't be the end. Because someone locking for a picture with special behavior or color should not have to look in all by-country-categories.

A second question of mine: on which system are Category:Fancy pigeon breeds, Frill and Owl pigeons, Homer and racer, pouter and cropper, trumpeter, utility pigeons and tumbler and highflyer based on? It seams to be an (official) grouping but it is not the European, because there are differences (not only with the names but also with some breeds put into). --84.181.59.4 17:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The Category:Pigeons-Problem[edit]

It seams to me, that Category:Pigeons refers to w:Domesticated pigeons as common name of w:Columba livia but as part of Category:Birds by common name it should be part of Category:Columbidae as Pigeons and doves constitute the bird family, Columbidae (w:Columbidae). --84.181.43.66 18:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I put a description eq. Category:Animals by common named groups in Category:Pigeons and Category:Doves --79.197.124.191 22:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Weapon stations[edit]

Currently we have Category:Weapon stations and Category:Remote weapon systems. I think Category:Weapon stations should redirect to Category:Remote weapon systems. --Geo Swan (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi GeoSwan. I disagree - the weapon station is the control system / guidance station of the remote weapon system. We wouldn't categorise an "aircraft cockpit" as "aircraft" either, would we? The category is an appropriate subcategory of the wider category. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Okay -- but is this a meaningful metaphor? An aircraft has multiple components, cockpit, wings, engine(s), tail, fuselage, nose, landing carraige, and possibly cargo compartment, passenger compartment, bomb-bays, missile racks. But what components remote weapon system have? Are there any that have more than just two -- the externally mounted weapon itself, and the internal weapon control station. Given that these two components can't be confused, why are you arguing that one of them should be a sub-category? Geo Swan (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  - You seem to me to be making a good case that the WEAPON should have its own subcategory under the top category of "remote weapon systems" - you are failing in my view to make a good case for the removal of the already existing subcategory. Doing so would simply remove information / classification data. If all I want is the control stations, why should I have to hunt through hundreds of images of the actual weapons first? Ingolfson (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Idem. Could you collapse the controllers of the drones, the drone infrastructure and the drones in Pakistan in one category ? --Foroa (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Highways in Denmark[edit]

I think that this category should be renamed to Motorways in Denmark as they are in fact motorways and not highways (in the traditional sense anyway). The Danish word motorvej literally mean motorway and google searches indicates that the Danish Ministry of Transportation favours the term motorway over highway. In kind regards, Henrik/heb [T C E] 09:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Institut Kultury (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Not in Belarusan. Should be Category:Instytut Kultury (Minsk Metro station) Renessaince (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Не возражаю, разумеется. Вот только тогда надо пройти по категориям для всех станций - там полный разброд и шатание. Русский, белорусский, разные варианты латиницы. За основу можно взять официальные латинские именования, приведенные на нынешних схемах в метро. • Jeron 22:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ок, тады я пазьней пагляджу лацінскія варыянты і ўсе катэгорыі выстаўлю на перайменаваньне. --Renessaince (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Grushauka (Minsk Metro station)[edit]

Not in Belarusan. Should be Category:Hrušaǔka (Minsk Metro station). Renessaince (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

не против --AltynAsyr (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Rapid transit icons of Shanghai[edit]

created by mistake. Correct one: Category:Shmetro Route Logo Flor!an (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Asura[edit]

Some confusion here. The title Asura should be used for the Hindu demons. The same title is used on English Wikipedia Asura. I suppose the butterflies in these category should be moved to something more appropriate. (I have no knowledge of that. I cant suggest any name.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

What en.wikipedia does is not very important. I don't see any reason to privilege Biology, Hinduism or Buddhism (or any of the many possibilies listed in en:Asura (disambiguation).

So why not separate this category in multiple category: Category:Asura (genus), Category:Asura (Hinduism), Category:Asura (Buddhism)?

Best regards Liné1 (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Liné1. Commons has not such a concept as en:Wikipedia:Primary_topic#Is_there_a_primary_topic.3F as those are specific to cultures, languages, countries and client types (wikisource, wikispecies, wikipedias). The non disambiguation is only accepted by tradition for country names, (former) capitals and national symbols. --Foroa (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I support Line1's proposal of disambiguation. Btw, i previously overlooked this. But the Hindu demons are covered in Category:Asuras. Hence, that category should be renamed per this new disambiguation proposal.
But then what do we do about this Category:Asura? Can make it similar to a disambiguation page on Wikipedias? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:H2O: Just Add Water[edit]

recently created empty category. Unlikely to be populated as the television series that this cat relates to has ended and there are unlikely to be free images that could be used to populate it. AussieLegend (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that several cats have been added, but while these cats relate to actors involved with the program, only File:Angus McLaren.jpg could be construed as relating to the TV series. All of the other images seem to have been taken well after the series finished in April 2010. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Images for the actors, if free, should reasonably be in their own categories unless they are from the TV series- which would more than likely not be free images. Not a category likely to be of any use. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Unlikely to ever be properly populated. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Dove with olive branch[edit]

Here is too much merged into one. The parent categories are:

Category:Symbolic doves
Category:olive branches in art
Category:noah's Ark
Category:peace symbols
Category:bird symbols
and file:Attribué à Pierre Gobert, Louise-Élisabeth de France et sa soeur jumelle Henriette de France (vers 1737).jpg may show the dove as a symbol of Innocence and Virtue

I kindly suggest to divide this category into

Category:Olive branches (symbol of peace) (peace symbols, olive branches in art)
Category:Peace Doves (Bird symbols, peace symbols, Category:Doves)
Category:Doves in Christianity

I am a little lost with Doves in Christianity, because of the multiple symbolic references.

a dove descending from (the) heaven(s)
the Holy Spirit
apostle
dove represents the peace of the soul
resurrection,
Emblem of Divine Peace (at funerals)
Emblem of devoted love / Emblem of conjugal love, affection and harmony (at weddings)

With Category:Noah's Ark the dove may be a symbol for resurrection. Do you have any suggestions for sub-categories?
Category:Peace Doves does not refer to the peace of souls (civil peace only). As suggested at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/11/Category:Pigeons in art Category:Doves shall become a category for pigeons in art of symbolic significance only. --PigeonIP (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Former train stations in Portugal[edit]

Delete: No practical difference between this and Category:Disused train stations in Portugal‎. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Disused train stations: "Disused train stations are no longer in use as such. If they have other uses, please add them to Category:Former train stations. If they are NOT used for any purpose anymore, add them to Category:Abandoned train stations."

There is no Category:Abandoned train stations in Portugal. If there is no practical difference between disused and former train stations shouldn't all disused train stations be former train stations in Portugal? Maybe Category talk:Disused train stations helps. --PigeonIP (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wasaga Beach[edit]

This category is currently an element of Category:Beaches of Ontario. But only some of its images are of beaches. Other images are of regular scenes in the community of Category:Wasaga Beach, Ontario. I think a reorganization is in order.

IMO, scenes of the community of Wasaga Beach should be in Category:Wasaga Beach, Ontario. IMO, scenes of the beaches of Wasaga Beach should be in Category:Beaches of Wasaga Beach, Ontario.

IMO, Category:Beaches of Wasaga Beach, Ontario should be in Category:Wasaga Beach, Ontario and Category:Beaches in Simcoe County. Geo Swan (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. --Foroa (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Also agree. The city of Wasaga Beach is not a beach. Could we simplify, and simply move beach pictures to Category:Beaches of Wasaga Beach or Category:Beaches in Simcoe County? We could also possibly separate out pictures to Category:Wasaga Beach Provincial Park (I'm not sure how easy that would be, the beach area seems to be haphazardly divided amongst park areas and private lands). In any case, a reorganization is certainly in order. Fungus Guy (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternately, images that were both of an actual beach, and were in the park, could go in both Category:Beaches of Wasaga Beach, Ontario and Category:Wasaga Beach Provincial Park. Geo Swan (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Good plan. Fungus Guy (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Male toplessness in photography[edit]

Since all images we deal with here are "photographs" of some form, this category seems particularly redundant. If the intention is to distimguish between pictures taken with a camera and illustrations, it would seem more sensible to categorize the latter since we have fewer of those. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that it would be misleading to call sculptures, drawings, paintings, engravings "photographs". This category is a companion to Category:Female toplessness in photography. That the majority of the images we currently have of male toplessness are actual photographs seems to me an insufficient reason to delete. Keep Infrogmation (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant -- covered by the male toplessness category. The same applies to the female equivalent. Andreas JN466 10:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Agree with nomination. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Maps of rivers of North America[edit]

I created File:Watershed of Big Creek, Ontario -b.jpg, and placed it in Category:Drainage basins of North America. Another contributor removed it from that category, and placed it in Category:Maps of rivers of North America, with the edit summary "Moved to a more specific category".

Granted, rivers are not the only bodies of water that have drainage basins, or watersheds. But does it help to have a parallel set of categories named "Maps of rivers of ..."? When is a "map of a river" not a map of its watershed, or a portion there-of? -- Geo Swan (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, it's me that some time ago I moved the file that you created, my explanation was unclear and in fact I think it's a good thing to discuss here.

First a note on the word watershed (or Wasserscheide in german), I think I understood that it can be used interchangeably to areas and lines, but Romance (or Salvic) languages use different words. So, over time, these categories were split unevenly in the categories used for north america and oceania compared with the ones used for europe, asia, africa and south america. The first aim was thus to make them more homogeneous.

For reasons related more to the graphics and the ability to re-edit the map, that the geography, I tried to distinguish the hydrographic maps indicating areas (the drainage basins or watersheds), from the ones indicating lines (or paths); I also mantain separatedly all the depictions of "drainage divides."

As you rightly pointed out there is also the question of the different drainage basins by rivers (eg lakes, karst areas etc.). In the future it might be useful to create categories similar to this type of files.

If you want to you may create something more specific.

Finally, the definition of "North America" (or similar), many categories relating to physical geography have been organized according to administrative divisions and not according to the categories of physical geography (eg physiographic provinces), this usually creates problems when the object crosses geographical boundaries (eg File:Lake Erie, St Clair drainage basin, US side.gif or File:Al-Sa-Ma-rivers.png). In such cases might be at useful to refer to a more general category, rather than performing a multiple categorization.

Obviously I hope that in time to arrive at a guideline for this type of files.

Cordially. Ciaurlec (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

October 2012[edit]

Category:Heraldic helmets affronté[edit]

This categorie means Heraldic helmets affronté in crest and Helmets affronté is a heraldic categorie too. Perhelion (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

They are both heraldic categories. The difference is that one is about helmets in heraldry (the object), and the other is limited to its use as an heraldic external element of the blazon, the heraldic helmet.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, affronté means something like front view, so "helmets affronté" = helmets (front view), in heraldic terms.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Darwinius, yes that have I've meant, but the categories don`t say this but they are wrong named too (I mean not the French terminology). For example you have created with the same logic Category:Heraldic helmets in profile and Category:Helmets in profile. I really don't think Heraldic is a terminology to describe or differentiate a heraldic object!? I've removed all non heraldic files from Category:Helmets in profile (as you can see in practice not many people understand this (your) meaning of categorizing). That what you want is a heraldic external element/object like crest. In German heraldry there is a clear term for this, called de:Oberwappen. What is the corresponding heraldic terms in English or French? I think this sittuation is originated through Category:Heraldic helmets and Category:Helmets in heraldry in Category:Heraldic external ornaments. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I see now you have continued a famous unsolved problem Commons_talk:WikiProject_Heraldry#Renaming_the_category_tree and also Commons_talk:WikiProject_Heraldry#Category:Heraldic_helmets_affronté -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If I well recall, in my attempt to organize those categories I heavily relied in late 19th, early 20th century heraldic treaties to find proper names for them. The proper name in English for helmets as external ornaments seems to be "heraldic helmet" indeed. See here for instance, in a 2004 book on the theme. I understand that this could be very confusing, it was also to me in the beginning, since my heraldic knowledge in general was rudimentary (it's way better now), and I'm Portuguese and was not very used to the English and French terminology (but now that I've became used to it I understand it way better than the Portuguese, which is sloppy at times). One way to prevent confusion is to explain in both categories what they are about. I don't know of any better alternative to "Heraldic Helmets" as a name for this cat.

By the way, my intention, when I started to divide the heraldic helmets into profile, affronté, closed, open, etc. was to provide some logical system in which the real useful categories (baron helmet, gentleman helmet, etc) could be placed and easily reached.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that here it's a mistake. Affronté (french), like affrontato (italian) and facing (english) is not an helmet in front, but is used only for two heraldic figures (like the helmets or any other animal) seen in profile opposing face to face, and so one with the face toward sinister side of the shield and the other with the face toward the dexter side of the shield. --Massimop (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No, in English heraldry it is used for a single helmet, and it means a full-facing helmet (towards the viewer, not another helmet). Check usage.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I finded, in English heraldry, the words affrontant (http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/Jpglossa.htm), with the same meaning of fernch word affronté, or affrontee (http://historymedren.about.com/od/pimbley/a/pim_a_2.htm), with the same meaning of fernch word affronté, or affronty (http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/Jpglossa.htm), with the same meaning of french expression de front, or affrontée (http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/heraldry_a.aspx), with the same meaning of the french expression de front and the english expression full-faced. The use of the french term affronté (not affrontée) implies the french meaning. If you want the meaning full-faced you have to use affrontée or affronty. --Massimop (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Category:Heraldic helmets full-faced would be equally correct then, and more easily understood?--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 04:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

To me first it is so far whether French or English terminology, but not necessarily mixed (but this was not my mainly intention for the discussion)! You say "Heraldic helmets" is a English heraldic term. But we need a distinction between Heraldic helmets "in shield" and "above shield". Then I would prefer clearly French (for two reasons): someone relatively lowbrow in heraldry (or just don't know English heraldry), definitely does not recognize/find this. We must make a clear distinction for laymen (or just normal Commons-user) to the normal common categorization on Commons (I mean do not use Heraldic = Heraldry for different things). So I would prefer French if it gives a clearer term , and in general it would make a more clearly relation to the heraldry. But unfortunately there is not such term, Casque or Heaume?!? So I prefer English.

"As Charge - so even element of the coat of arms - the helm in shield is rare. There are arms on which an emblem is shown wearing the helmet or the helmet is simply placed the plate holders." So after the context Category:Heraldic figures (chrages?) I would suggest:

Thanks for your response. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 09:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I will follow the system you deem to be the best, given that there are at least two separate categories, one for heraldic helmets, and another for helmets as charges.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok then we/you/I do start move? -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 11:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Helmets affronté[edit]

This categorie seems a Heraldic categorie but there is also Category:Heraldic helmets affronté‎ Perhelion (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss this here --> Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/10/Category:Heraldic helmets affronté.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ridable miniature railways[edit]

Unnecessary duplication of Category:Miniature railways - all miniature railways are rideable by definition, otherwise they would be considered to be model railways. An optimist on the run! 14:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There are also miniature railways too small to be ridden, yet not considered as model railways. These include both many garden railways (currently a subcat of miniature railways) and also the small model engineering scales (such as 2½" gauge) that are miniature live steam railways generally found in parks as too big for a domestic garden, yet smaller than the 3½" gauge railways that are usually considered as the lower limit for riding. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Saint Peter in Chains Cathedral[edit]

possible disambiguation from Category:Cathedral of St. Peter in Chains in Peterborough, Ontario Fungus Guy (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Giardino dei Semplici di Firenze - Dynosaurs exhibiton (2012)[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Italy. So cat and everything in it should probably be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not upload any cat in here.. it's about dynosaurs :?? --Sailko (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Cat: Category. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I know, lol. For my personal point of view, I took and uploaded the picture because it has not an artistic, but a didactic purpouse. Shooting was allowed in the museum and I don't think there's any possible risk about holding these images. --Sailko (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Spoken Wikipedia - Esperanto[edit]

project on eo wikipedia appears to be inactive TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I moved there one relevant article previously in Category:Spoken Wikipedia, and I suggested to the author of traduki.de to release their works (a few dozens of spoken abridged Eo Wikipedia articles) under a compatible licence. There is also eo:Projekto:Aŭdioartikoloj, but that project seems inactive. I may try to invite the community to reactive it, particularly if the earlier idea does not work out. Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Eurovision Song Contest 2013 logos[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logos, the upload of Eurovision Song Contest logos to Wikimedia Commons is generally not appropriate, so this category should be deleted as empty. There are some remaining logos at Category:Eurovision Song Contest logos, although these are older ones which can be pure text in some cases - these should be looked at separately. I'm also nominating for deletion two other sister categories which are also empty, these being Category:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logos and Category:Eurovision Song Contest 2010 logos. CT Cooper · talk 19:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No objections for more than 6 months and category is empty. Deleted as empty. --heb [T C E] 08:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Re-opened: It's neither empty nor deleted. --rimshot^talk 19:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There were three categories nominated for deletion here - two have been deleted; one hasn't. In that remaining category, there were two files in the category. I have removed File:EuroSuecia.svg as it was a generic Eurovision heart and not suitable for this category. The other file has been nominated for deletion for copyright related reasons. I hope the sudden appearance of these two files won't delay progress for another six months. CT Cooper · talk 21:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. When I closed this I had only seen the two co-nominated categories not the main one for some reason. That was a sloppy action on my part :( When I saw the third category I nominated the file present there for deletion and following that I didn't get back to this. If the file nominated for deletion gets deleted I hope it will be okay to delete this category without further discussion. If not I guess it's a new situation :) In kind regards, heb [T C E] 06:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This category is now empty again. CT Cooper · talk 18:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted per above. --heb [T C E] 05:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted as empty, after the remaining images have been moved or deleted. --rimshot^talk 06:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Krzysztof Makara[edit]

Copyright issues.

See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Files_erroneously_transferred_to_Commons

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Post-on-sill (poteaux-sur-solle) Construction[edit]

Purely a problem with the category name; we need a category for this topic. First off, "Construction" shouldn't be capitalised. Secondly, the French portion is misspelled and apparently wrongly pluralised; it's fr:Poteau sur sole, not Poteaux-sur-solle. Thirdly, I've never before seen a bilingual category name; either we should go with the English "post-on-sill", or we should decide (like en:wp apparently has) that the French term is common enough in English that we should use it here. Therefore, this should be renamed: either Category:Poteau sur sole construction or Category:Post-on-sill construction. I don't care which way we go, but we need to pick one of them. Nyttend (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This category should be moved to Category:Poteau sur sole construction, since it is mostly french colonial architecture that uses this construction technique. Fungus Guy (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Metro Louisville Kentucky Small Cities[edit]

This is a very poorly defined category. What makes a city a "small city"? Is this meant to include the entire metropolitan area, or just Jefferson County? The name indicates the metro area (multiple counties in two US states), but the category that's been applied to it suggests Jefferson County, which has boundaries identical to those of Louisville. I'd suggest merger to the main Louisville category, of which this is presently a subcategory. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Litwins[edit]

Propose this category for deletion for the reason that it has no subject, because Litwin is just Polish (and formerly also Russian) for Lithuanian. --glossologist (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There are articles ru:Литвины, en:Litvin, pl:Litwini w znaczeniu historycznym, uk:Литвини. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm pretty aware of that. Unfortunately they don't make this category any more valid as they describe the historic usage of the Slavic-language ethnonym Litvin/Litwin which doesn't exist in English and doesn't give any clear criteria for a categorisation, which is the most important. --glossologist (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the deletion. This category just makes no sense. GiW (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete makes no sense. 更迅速 (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So do you mean that there should be no separate category for "residents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" ? Where should they go then ? --Foroa (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

So by this logic "residents of USSR" should go under category:Ruskies etc.? Please don't invent things. 更迅速 (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps such category may exist, but certainly not under the name "Litwins", plus at the moment all that category contains is just three 19th century (i.e., post-GDL era) paintings. --glossologist (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:No. 1 Road Pumpstation[edit]

Are these pics of No. 1 Road Pumpstation? Fungus Guy (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. The City of Richmond website places it at the "south foot of No. 1 Road at Bayview Street" which is where that structure is according to Google Street View .. but it doesn't look much like it.. could there have been additional structure added on to it?? -- OlEnglish (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your city link says "New designs underway indicate the building will acquire a peaked corrugated metal roof and wood cladding," and the City of Richmond construction projects 2012 states "The existing No. 1 Road North drainage pump station is nearing the end of its service life and is not able to meet the demands of future development. Completion of this station will replace the existing structure, modernize the equipment and increase the pumping capacity from 1.98 cubic meters per second to 4.5 cubic meters per second to meet future predicted flows." So it appears they replaced it with this. Fungus Guy (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Latin America[edit]

Per recent nonsense at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/10/Category:Armored vehicles in Latin America, it appears that Wikimedia has now decreed that "Latin America" has "no real political basis".

If that is true, then we should delete this category. If that is not true, and if WM can manage to define Latin America (something that the real world seems to have no problem in doing), then we ought to stop (and promptly!) the ongoing deletion of the child categories, and the decategorization of their content.

Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Here in Europe, Latin America has a geographical, cultural, political and historical sense - may be as we refer to Europe in the same way : see Histoire de l'Europe ( transl. : History of Europe ) on FR-Wikipedia. So I would consider this cat as having a sense also at first sight. Thib Phil (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep A useful category that parallels othes sources such as museum collections,history texts, and academic departments. Wmpearl (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Dead men[edit]

We have a few hundreds of thousand dead people (by year) and 95% of category:People by name are dead. Clearly redundant category. Foroa (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This category is created after Category:Dead women, which has been long-standing with nobody assuming it redundant; category:Dead men comes to fill the male equivalent niche which naturally will take some work to fill - as probably most dead figures that we have on Commons are men.. - Tagging a dead man with this cat helps telling apart dead people by their sex. This category is, thus, as redundant as Category:Standing men, Category:Men of Norway and Category:Male artists, I guess. Orrling talk 07:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This category should contain pictures of men, depicting them after their death, and not all men that are currently deceased. The same goes for Category:Dead women of course. --Zejo (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No... for that we use Category:Corpses. Category:Dead people is for listing historic people who are now, indeed, deceased - and one can see that we sort those people by sex, as is done with e.x. Category:Paintings of people, Category:Sitting people etc... ;-) Orrling talk 09:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, then I think this category would get extremely over-crowded. Create categories by year like e g "Male 1970 deaths", and make those subcategories to both Category:Dead men and Category:1970 deaths. --Zejo (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This is much more to agree with. Although very-very crowdeed categories are not rare here, if I need to remind this.. – Not the over-crowdedness should determine, if I'm asked, but the efficacy, logic & fluency of navigation, and there I would think that your proposal is most supportable, but I'd take it one stage toward the more inclusive – that is, century male death, instead of decade or year. This can look like that: Category:18th century deceased men/Category:18th century deceased women, Category:19th century deceased men/Category:19th century deceased women and so forth... Opinions? Orrling talk 10:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Fully redundant with Category:People by date of death and its thousands of subcats: do we have to split for each category and to specify that it is a men or a woman; what do we gain with such a male/female split up: 2 times 154000 items to recategorise ? It is easy to define and start such categories and leave the work for the others. --Foroa (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Heheh... no concensus. You won't be able to discard the cat. ;-) Orrling talk 11:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't need a consensus to delete a category that is redundant, not maintained and is only filled up with 0,01 % of its capacity. --Foroa (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No.. You need to listen carefully now. :) If you try to perform actions that ignore the majority at a given dicussion page (such as this one) you will lose some legitimacy as an editor. I'm afaraid that this consequence is not too far from taking effect as we know that (– now that I notice the identity of the "serial violator") this is not the first nor second time for you to both override/circumvent discussion procedures and be asked to avoid such conduct. No need to make everyone's life on this project so harsh. Please refrain from repeatedly putting your prestige in such embarrassing situations. Orrling talk 12:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete Redundant and hence useless. The current scheme with subcats by decade/year is perfectly sufficient.--FAEP (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

So far we can see two unique voices here (out of 4? 3?....) in support of continuing the use of this category, with respect to the long-standing existing Category:Dead women and Category:Dead children, whose existence blocks dialectical attempts to "delete" this-one equivalent category anyway. The only thing left is to agree upon the way in which to reuse it (-and its female equivalent): Group deceased men and women by decade? -By century? or by year, or maybe by other factor. Orrling talk 13:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I would definitely turn all of these into "by date of death" categories, which can be refined to whatever period makes sense (presumably by year when known, though for some we won't know more closely than century; we'll also want categories for unknown date of death (but known to be dead). The latter probably needs to be subdivided into those where we don't happen to know and those who disappeared (e.g. no one can be sure of Judge Crater's date of death). - Jmabel ! talk 15:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

But why not more simply batch the bucket-kickers into larger groups such as Category:1910s deceased men, Category:1780s deceased women - i.e the decade key? Won't you think that a "by date of death"+combined with the gender would be too specific, and interest-less? (I mean, for the particular year-of-death we do have already the sex-neutral classification, like this; here User:Zejo suggests a parallelling method that would offer attention to the sex of the deceased with, say, grouping by decades or other broader themes). What do you say? Orrling talk 15:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the problem with an overcrowded category like the intended Category:Dead men? What is your use case? What is the problem with the intended split into thousands of subcategories: You will slow down catscan by that until it runs into time limits. Here you have all men dead in 1870 (images and categories). And it works for the 1870 deads in the US also. Both dead men and women cats contain only *quite a few* examples and there are some images of already dead which should go to Category:Corpses (some of them I moved already). So from the current absolute number of elements these cats are not overcrowded at all. Compared to number of dead men and women these cats are empty and should be deleted. Nobody will maintain these cats over a longer period. And it's dull and stereotypic work to copy all images and categories to your dead wo/men cats. So if you, Orrling, are counting votes, this is a Delete (both cats for gender correctness). If you need more interesting work, try this. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep; obviously useful basic-sorting category; no strong opinions (as yet) about the best way to organize it Lx 121 (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I'm having trouble seeing any use for maintaining a combination of the 49% of humanity that has been male (and already have categories) and the 94% of humanity that have already died. (Only 6% of humans are currently alive: see, for example, Curtin, Ciara (March 1, 2007). "Fact or Fiction?: Living People Outnumber the Dead". Scientific American (web). Retrieved on 2013-03-15.) People who have died, by any division other than time period, seems useless. (And, in my opinion, the birth/death by year categories exist primarily to divide people by when they existed, not whether they are dead per se. Note that Category:Living people was long ago merged into Category:People by name on Commons.) Category:Male human corpses, on the other hand, would make sense. --Closeapple (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

for now this looks like we have 3/6 "unique" voices believing this category merits deletion vs 3/6 others not even expressing a damn intention to defend the existence of this subcategory as it is so obvious for most users & readers... each group is legitimate; as you all note, however, the discussion is being handled as on which better form to employ to better organize the content of the category(ies), it is not handled at a "Deletion request" page ;). We continue reusing these two cats! :-) Orrling talk 23:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral--Zejo (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Great. I think (After a second thought) that decades would constitute an all-better grouping level for us here (comparing to centuries or years). Example: Franz Kafka will be endorsed with a new Category:1920s deceased men, and Desideria of Sweden with Category:1860s deceased women. Parents for each will be 1920s deaths and Dead (wo)men. Orrling talk 10:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Subgrouping {dead + gender} by decade of death: Any objection? Orrling talk 02:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Just group deceased people by [Category:deceased people][Category:1934 death][Category:male], which would be quick, easy, and allow for future category intersections. Right now we can't really do those because there are over 14 million files here, and searching through a significant minority of those files are a lot of files to search through, but the tech should be coming, eventually. At that point, the files would all have to be recategorized anyway, so let's make it easy on and plan for the future with multiple categories instead of trying to pin down everything about a person in a single category. For one example, what about old images of kids (where boys and girls both wore dresses until they got older)? Multiple categories still shows them up, although specific categories would leave those images "lost" outside other categories. Banaticus (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The proposed category scheme is only relevant and applicable to identified items of deceased people - counting much less than 14 millions and is hence much more simple; correct me if I'm wrong but the tech IS there already, as much as spoken about those bots that are able to easily locate-and-recat but I believe that we can manually sort males from females – as has been long done in just so many other big-cats – and those ones where you cannot determine the sex can remain just Dead children, for the matter. Still, the theme of subgrouping deads by gender is basic to Commons, as I'd assume roughly 90% of people-categories are split to gender subs (sometimes male, female and children). Just think: at this moment, Shirley Horn is neatly tagged with everything you can think about, including 2005 deaths; but no single suggestion of the person's sex! Adding Category:21st-century deceaced women, or alternatively 2000s deceaced women, can so simply respond to that criterion. Even when you have Henry Ford's Category:Men of the United States, you still want to know men from women when approaching the 1940s deaths list... Orrling talk 08:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If the tech's there, let's just use multiple categories. If a category gets really big, well, so what? Banaticus (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I for one would have no problem with death and gender being completely disjoing in terms of categories. - Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hm. That makes you neutral, I guess; and for you here with the "multiple categories", could you specify more what it means? Thankz. Orrling talk 14:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Useless[edit]

Combined with Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/10#Subdivide_.22Dead_men.22_by_year.2Fcentury.2Fother.3F, this makes 5 people that advise against further subdivisions by gender. Anyway, such splits can only be realistically made with active bot operator assistance. --Foroa (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no "combined" calculations with other fora than the CFD ;) -- the invitation at the Village Pump was served to draw users who wanted it to this page here, where we have an overwhelming voice for extending the usage of Category:Dead men and Category:Dead women in a reconstructive manner & discontinue the attempts to sabotage this old scheme; anyone who wished to vote in support of the deletion would have come to this page – few did so. As already said, we proudly keep this category run ("four more years") and if needed a bot will be initiated though manual recategorization is prooved good no less. Orrling talk 14:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

By country[edit]

I propose Dead wo/men by country, as to variate from the prevailing proposal of "by time" in this discussion. This can be actually perfect as the "Death by country" scheme is to date relatively underdeveloped and attribution of past-people to the Death-by-country pool lacks. Category:Death in Serbia for this matter can have a subcategory:Dead people of Serbia where we further store Dead men of Serbia for males and Dead women of Serbia for females, thus removing from Vladislav Petković the category "Men of Serbia" and re-tagging him with "Dead men of Serbia" – in turn listed at both "Dead men by country" and "Men of Serbia". As said earlier on this page, notably plenty of personalities on Commons (as Slobodan Milošević) don't currently give any idea as to the person's sex! (in both dead and living,, like this one) Orrling talk 17:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A new proposal[edit]

As some of you may have noticed, in the last few days I have made all the "Xth-century men" and "Xth-century women" categories through the 19th century subcategories of "Dead men" and "Dead women", respectively, since anyone who was an adult in those centuries has now died. This greatly reduces the number of categories that need to be separately placed in "Dead men" and "Dead women"; we mostly need to worry only about people from the 20th and 21st centuries (i.e. people who could still be alive, but are not). Any comments? Gildir (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice. I'd think "Dead wo/men by country" is more effective and on-the-mark, we boast of a very rich navigable by-country span maintained in big part by me, which can replace the devotion to a gender-deaths-by-time originally discussed here (as you've suggested, a dead-attribution to people through history may be too extensive to serve as a pointful and reasonable categorization of humankind). As no objection appears to have been expressed on the quite old comment above I think we can set in motion a by-country sketch. (The page was lately somehow reddened so I'll revive it in the light of this productive forum.) All of you welcome to give your bit at the spree! example here (deceased persons in respective national men-women subgroups) Orrling talk 20:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Royal Navy ships[edit]

This category contains a lot of vessels, that also are categorised under Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom. Also Category:Royal Navy ships itself is categorised in Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom. This is not according the convention. A clear definition to make it possible to devide this ships in two different categories, understandable for not-specialists, is not given. Besides: The Netherlands and a few other countries also have a Royal Navy, with Royal Navy ships. Not so usefull to add e.g. the ships in Category:Naval ships of the Netherlands to Category:Royal Navy ships. I don't think it is correct to have two categories for the same British naval ships.

My suggestion is to transfer all ships in Category:Royal Navy ships to Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom. Category:Royal Navy ships then only has categories like: Naval ships of the United Kingdom, Naval ships of the Netherlands, Naval ships of Canada, Naval ships of Australia and so on. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that two categories for one purpose is wrong, it does seem that they actually have slightly different objectives. Category:Royal Navy ships "include ships commissioned into Royal Navy service", whereas Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom "include naval ships designed, built, or operated in or by the United Kingdom". As I see it the latter is more inclusive than the former. The instructions for moving are here (they look somewhat like a policy in fact) and the place to discuss it is here. In kind regards, heb

"Ships of <country>" are vessels with the flag of a given country. For ships built in a given country, there is "Ships built in <country>". -- Docu at 05:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ssh, its not polite to mention it, but for while we were a republic, the Protectorate had a rather significant navy. Also at various times the army has owned and operated ships, and our air force too has been an operater of armed watercraft, mostly small, but some big enough to be ships.--KTo288 (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

How about as a compromise creating Category:Ships of the British Royal Navy.--KTo288 (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

For me (being a Dutchman) it is very difficult to see what we gain with this suggestion. I opt for a clear, simple system. To follow for users not specialist. For me images with a navy subject have more accent of navy personnel. For images with just ships I prefer categories with naval ships by country. The individual ships in Categories:Naval ships by country by name. (I have to transfer a lot of Dutch ships to such a category, but that is no problem.) --Stunteltje (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Siemens Combino Plus[edit]

Delete: It is redundant, ambiguous, and incompatible with the rest. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Defense Meteorological Support Program[edit]

I think this is really the Category:Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, support redirects to satellite on WP. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have turned the "really the ..." link into a visible category link to avoid adding these pages to the cat. Really I don't understand what Mercurywoodrose means... --Mirokado (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. thanks, I really try to avoid that...really:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)b

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Google Art Project works by James Abbott McNeil Whistler[edit]

This category has McNeill spelt incorrectly. Please see Category:Google Art Project works by James Abbott McNeill Whistler. I have already corrected the spellings on the only page it contained, so this can be deleted. --Mirokado (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Also Category:Google Art Project works by James Abbott McNeill Whistler, American (active England): ~~This has a description after the artist's title, inconsistent with the other GAP categories. Here I have also corrected the only file which was in this category so it can be deleted.~~ --Mirokado (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Requests withdrawn, User:Dcoetzee prefers redirected categories, I guess that will help with any subsequent rogue input from GAP. Both now updated to redirects. --Mirokado (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Made in Italy[edit]

The user Pava insists that the above mentioned category has to be a subcat to the following categories:

Category:Industrial design
Category:Symbols of Italy
Category:Quality
Category:Badges

I tried to explain to him that "Made in Italy" is nothing more and nothing less than a "merchandise mark indicating that a product has been manufactured in Italy" but unfortunately, I had little success--FAEP (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

FAEP analysis is partial and tendentious, you'll better understand what it is reading his talk, there is no question of merchandise.

I invite you to take a look at this source: [www.esteri.it/MAE/IT/Sala_Stampa/ArchivioNotizie/Interventi/2012/03/20120322_Terzi_ASEAN.htm] (site of Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) is the foreign ministry of the government of the Republic of Italy, but i have more (easy reperability) external source) no marketing agencyas he says. and he still considers unreliable source with promotional purposes. (when I asked him if I had more faith in him, a simple user like me who exhibits a personal opinion, or the ministry of a government of one of the most important states of the EU and the G8 I gave him the nationalist fanatic and I asked why there would add also "one of the most important of the galaxy") diminishing the credibility of my source)

The diciture Made In Italy is third most well-known brand in the world after coca cola and VISA. defined (and internationally recognized) quality mark and symbol of Italy.

In addition, I also ask, since we're here, how productive his behavior, which differs from the real intentions of the commons, and even leads :to irony where belittling and making fun of my words. I remember that the user is "autopatrolling" and this should make him be more of his responsibilities included rb heavy and that is free, as is his actions are his responsibility, but also the admin who gave him this title.

Tomorrow I think I can participate in this discussion, I trust in you, I will return as soon as possible, (sorry if my english is no very good but I do not know exactly how language and are 4:30 am) thanks --Pava (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Here the same link of Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in English.--Patafisik (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

the category must be "clean", there are images no right. for example, company brands take advantage of the category for advertising. There is a warning (template) that invites users to not make that mistake? tank you. --Pava (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What the hell are you meaning???--FAEP (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

For me, this category name is misleading. "Made in Italy" means basically manufactured in Italy, while some people try to make it appear as a quality label. When I think about cars and motorbikes made in Italy, the first association is poor quality (although this seems improved in the last years). So if the category means some sort of label, it must contain that in the name. Commons is not a place to make promotion for a would be quality label; it can have its right place, but without the promotional aspects pushed by an Italian ministry. --Foroa (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

And anyway, all "Mades in xxx" Category:Country of origin will claim quality, so no need to "fabricate" redundant categories that emphasise quality as all those categories will belong there too. --Foroa (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

beyond that the phrase "car and motorcycle produced in Italy are of low quality" O_O? the honda produces in Italy, the ducats you seem low quality? piaggio? Ferrari? Lamborghini? Pagani? Alfa Romeo? Maserati? you seem low quality? ok, let's not stop talking about these things that are off topic. The speech that I do is this: Unlike other "country of origin" the words "Made in Italy" has become a brand. Someone, not me, I even wrote in the incipit of the same category and reported by the website of the Ministry degl'esteri Italian, not me. So we have to find a category where the words "made in Italy" can be made as a brand. is a matter of fact, someone may be annoyed or to be "promotional" but it is not. is a fact.

but my intent is not to advertise, my intent is to find a category idona upload some photos, and I have to have it, not that you can not create just because someone thinks it's promotional. mica load advertising or Italian brands or do some advertising. Really do not be untrusting, we try to cooperate rather than slowing everything with endless controversy

We can create a category called "Made in Italy (brand)" to avoid confusion with the current one, what do you think? --Pava (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the Italian government often issues labels without considering further implications.

In its very broader sense Made in Italy is anything built within our boundaries (which can't be safely applied to Italian fashion bags built in China or Romania…).

In the sense meant by the Minister i guess that Made in Italy means anything created and enginereed in Italy, no matter where it was materially produced, and that is distinguished by a superior or particular level of quality.

Unfortunately the Minister didn't specify what must be distinguished as made in Italy meant as such.

Thus, while reckoning that Pava had no POV intents, I am afraid that classifying Made in Italy as Industrial design and Quality can be an endless source of controversies.

I guess that it can be safely classified under Symbols of Italy. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 15:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

ok, not bad but there is a subcategory of the cat "brands" (besides italian brand) where to put "Made in Italy" that he does not think of anyone who wants to promote? Also, I would not be in my turn controversial, but the controversy is out of commons if there are users who persecute others and instead of thinking about the good of the commons think about this sort of thing here in order to act in a non-productive degl 'others at work. I wonder what the purpose--Pava (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose It's a brand of Italy and as such it is categorised. National symbols are things like the anthem, the national personification, the coat of arms and - of course - the national flag. Made in "WHEREEVER" is simply a brand, nothing more, nothing less. And with regards to the "Pava had no POV intents" statement: Trying to promote a countries product, by claiming that they are tantamount to quality is at the very heart of the matter "POV intended advertising interests".

However, at the moment MiI is a subcat of "Products of Italy", "Brands of Italy" and "Country of origin". I'm sure that we all can agree that this is absolutely fine and since you're claiming that you're not trying to promote anything it can stay this way. On account of the fact that every "Made in COUNTRY" textlogo is a very simply styled wordmark, the only category that comes to my mind as another potentially appropriate one would be "Category:Simple text logos". Regards.--FAEP (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Basically we all agree. I still am convinced that it should be renamed to category:Made in Italy (label) as otherwise, in the end, it will become a duplicate cat from the products of Italy. (so should all labels be renamed as label). --Foroa (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

@ FAEP: I'm not to say that "made in Italy" is synonymous with quality, but the whole world, and certainly not I tell you with the aim of promoting Italian products, is merely to recognize a fact, without making an issue nationalist without envy. Then, if here on commons do not want to recognize some limitations yours, is a commons problem, a problem creating by users like you. However I am not here to do battle in the name of Made in Italy, sooner or later will be given to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, even here, when they start other users with different mentality to participate in this kind of discussion.--Pava (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC) PS: if I wanted to advertise made in Italy (which is absurd in my opinion that a user wants to advertise a brand, here on commons, is wasted energy because with little return but anyone can think the image that you want) I same open and reported this discussion, in order to publicize it as much as possible, however I did not open it certainly :) This write it here just because we judge the actions and not users, but you have to take action to judge the their responsibilities--Pava (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Virgin and Child between St Anthony of Padua and St Roque[edit]

User:Botaurus thinks that this is not a right category name, because artist name or museum is lacking and the files cannot be found. He thinks using this category is vandalism. Furthermore he sees a problem using an English title. see Oursana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Botaurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). There are many categories used like that without problems. In the main category Category:Paintings by Titian in the Prado Museum are six similar categories e.g. Category:Bacchanal of the Andrians‎. I agree that a category mentioning artists name, etc. for description is better. But even this normally used category name should be kept and used without misunderstandings. Oursana (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's important to put the name of the author in the name of the painting, specially when the subject is very popular (like in this case the Virgin, St Anthony, and St Rochus). The name of the Museum I would let it by side, and to use only if of the same painter you have two or more paintings with the same subject or title (e.g. some paintings of Caravaggio), or if you have paintings of different artists but with the same subject/name. --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cabaret[edit]

At least for the Austrians, Germans and Swiss in this category the categorization is wrong, since "Kabarett" in German means "political satire" rather than "cabaret" (see en:Kabarett vs. en:Cabaret). So these people are comedians or satirists, but not at all cabaret performers. I think it would be best to reestablish the category Kabarett and categorize them with it. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the German equivalent for cabaret ? Revue is not really the same. --Foroa (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Quite often "Cabaret" is used instead of "Kabarett". --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There is Category:Political cabaret. I guess most German-speaking "Kabarettisten" would fit there. --rimshot^talk 18:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

So Kabarett is a subset/specialisation of Cabaret. Would the creation of a "political cabaret by country" not be the more generic solution, as comparable things exist in other countries, such as en:Capitol Steps, but it might be difficult to distinguish them from satirists and comedians. --Foroa (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No - "Kabarett" is "political satire", which is no subset of "cabaret", "political cabaret" is also no subset of "cabaret" (Is it a valid category at all? I mean: Is this term used at all in English? It seems to be a germanism for me.) --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cabaret in Germany[edit]

The categorization of these people is wrong, since "Kabarett" in German means "political satire" rather than "cabaret" (see en:Kabarett vs. en:Cabaret). So these people are comedians or satirists, but not at all cabaret performers. I think it would be best to put them in new categories Kabarett in Austria, Kabarett in Germany and Kabarett in Switzerland. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Inns in the United Kingdom[edit]

In the UK, Public houses and Inns are effectively indistinguishable and the majority of "Inns" would be considered pubs. As a result, I propose a merge to Category:Pubs in the United Kingdom, and all location subcats to the equivalent pub cat. This provides a more useful end result to users, and saves us having to make an awkward distinction. If only an inn offers accommodation, then this suggests making inns a subcat of pubs. However as time passes the businesses may stop/start providing beds, but the building stays the same - so is that distinction helpful to anyone? Its also hard to determine if a pub is an inn or not: A modern pub might call itself an "Inn" simply because it sounds historical. Many pubs not called "Inn" offer beds. Nilfanion (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd support this. I wasn't sure whether the difference was that Inns offered beds, food or fresh horses for stage coaches, but the first two of those have long ceased to be a distinction and sadly very few Inns can even offer stabling these days, let alone a fresh and well trained set of carriage horses. On a related note, should we also merge in bars? WereSpielChequers (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am less sure about supporting a merge. Most inns and public houses are distinguished by the name and you can find an index of historic inns in London at "Inns And Taverns Of Old London", 1909; certainly where a building has historic status as an inn, this should be recognized by Commons as the building type. Even if the inn is now publicly listed as a pub and may no longer offer accommodation, there seems little harm in it persisting in both inn and pub categories. Though an inn is often used as a term for a public house (particularly in the country), they are mostly distinguishable by being called an inn or including an offer of accommodation. The term is not archaic, as can be shown by this modern index AA the B&B Guide which included a large number of named inns offering B&B. --Fæ (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes the term "inn" is certainly used - the trouble is defining it in a way that makes a useful distinction. A village public house may or may not offer B&B, and this has little or no relation as to its name or its historical status: If its called "(something) Inn" or another typical pub name. Over time, accommodation services tend to be withdrawn too. This means neither the name, nor provision of accommodation, are as helpful as it could be for distinguishing. More practically: What should be done about a classic Inn: One that is a historic inn, called an inn, has always offered inn services? Even then it probably should still be listed as a pub, the regular patrons will consider it their local pub and it will have a pub sign outside the front door...--Nilfanion (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
To some extent merger is merely recognising the inevitable. I've just gone through the Inns in UK and started on Inns in England moving them down to the county level, only to discover that Berkshire was redirected to Pubs in Berkshire two years ago, and many individual buildings have some images in pub and some in Inn categories. One of the purposes of categorisation is to bring identical or near identical things together, with our current categorisation resources we don't have the ability to differentiate between Pubs and Inns. WereSpielChequers (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Support merge as the distinction has been lost in the vagaries of language, if further subcats were needed it could be done by describing the distinguishing feature, EG Category:Pubs that offer B&B in Essex, Category:Pubs using the name inn in Essex, Category:Historic inns in London stc. Oxyman (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Chocolate Saint Nicholas[edit]

sculptures (also when they are made out of food) are protected by copyright. Because they are made out of food they are by definition contemporary. This category should be deleted because it would contain copyright violations by definition. Vera (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

At least, one has a category where such images can be trapped, provided they are not PD (such as old posters/promotion) and they don't relate to the production (moulds) or packaging process ... --Foroa (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Self-propelled barges[edit]

It is usefull to extend the discussion of Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/03/Category:Riverboats with also this category. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Freiburg[edit]

Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

transl.: The correct and common name of this city is en:Freiburg im Breisgau. There is at least one other Freiburg in Germany.

Support Rename of all categories related to this Freiburg to Freiburg im Breisgau. --Túrelio (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please advise him to put all the categories together in one discussion an not in 35 different discussions. Thats ridiculous. --Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 13:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ich weiß leider nicht, wie alle betreffenden Kategorien in einer Diskussion zusammenzufassen sind. --Schubbay (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ich weiß nicht, wieviele Categories du schon bei Commons neu angelegt hast. Ab 10 Zeichen wird es sehr unübersichtlich in der Eingabemaske. Recht haben und Recht bekommen ist zweierlei. Mein Vorschlag: lassen wir Freiburg so bestehen, und wenn jemand hier etwas zu dem klitzekleinen Freiburg/Elbe hat, dann muß derjenige "Freiburg (Elbe)" schreiben. ANderes Beispiel: HANNOVER gibt es nicht nur in FRG, sondern auch anderswo auf der Welt. Niemand kam auf die Idee "Hannover (Niedersachsen)" zu schreiben. --Drdoht (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Du verwechselst Äpfel mit Birnen. Der offizielle Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau, im Breisgau ist also nicht nur ein enzyklopädisches Unterscheidungsmerkmal zu anderen Freiburgs sondern fester Namensbestandteil. Der Vergleich mit Hannover hinkt also sehr. Im Übrigen habe ich kein Problem mit längeren Kategoriebezeichnungen in der Eingabemaske. --Schubbay (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Für die "Category: Freiburg" ist hier bereits ewig schon eine automatische Weiterleitung zu "Category: Freiburg im Breisgau" installiert. Übersehen?? Ich wünsche weiterhin viel Vergnügen beim Umbenennen der Kategorien. (Watt mut dat mut) --Drdoht (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

While I don't think it would cause problems to rename Freiburg to Freiburg im Breisgau, renaming most of the other categories might be prussian correct but not very practical. Does the other Freiburg even have an archdiocese, bishops, auxiliary bishops, a Schutzmantelmadonnenaltar (very impressive German word btw), a Krozingen-Kapelle?--Stanzilla (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, there will be no great advantage for the categories. First Schubbay should correct "Freiburg" zo "Freiburg im Breisgau" everywhere, e.g. here. --Drdoht (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It's simply prussian correctness. The second Freiburg/Elbe is a small village with roundabout 1700 inhabitants ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiburg,_Lower_Saxony). Even the official webpage of my hometown is http://www.freiburg.de. I don't think there is any improvement by this action. --Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 08:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Support to rename all categories related to this Freiburg to Freiburg im Breisgau. It's not a prussian correctness: there is a third Freiburg in Switzerland. --DenghiùComm (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose zu dem Vorschlag all categories. Einige Kategorien beziehen sich nicht auf die Stadt. In der Eigendarstellung des Bistums wird z.B. Erzbistum Freiburg bzw. Erzdiözese Freiburg verwendet, siehe: http://www.ebfr.de/html/misc/impressum.html Zumindest diese Teildiskussionen gehören abgetrennt. Grüße --Frank (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Support I encountered already too many mistakes and mix ups. --Foroa (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Verkündigungsaltar, Krozingen-Kapelle (Freiburg)[edit]

Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Church interiors in Freiburg[edit]

Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Interiors of churches in Freiburg. That doesn't answer the question about "im Breisgau", though. --rimshot^talk 22:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Auferstehungskirche (Freiburg)[edit]

Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Baptisten (Freiburg)[edit]

Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Dominikanerkloster St. Albert (Freiburg)[edit]

Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Dreifaltigkeitskirche (Freiburg)[edit]

Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Erlöserkirche (Freiburg)[edit]

Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:FEG Freiburg[edit]

Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Franziskanerkloster (Freiburg)[edit]

Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Friedenskirche (Freiburg)[edit]

Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cemeteries in Freiburg[edit]

Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Alter Friedhof (Freiburg)[edit]

Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Earl M. Day[edit]

Why is this person so important to have an own cat? Sanandros (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A category or the lack of it is not, and never has been, a measure of the importance of the person. Hundreds if not thousands of people, houses, and other objects have their own category. If this is your reason for objecting to this category, why do you not object to all the other single-item categories? I fail to understand why you single this brave American hero out. But, his being a brave American hero has nothing to do with it at all. Categorization is designed for type, not necessarily quantity. For myself I find it most convenient in cases such as this to standardize the name by putting it in a category. Other pictures may well turn up. He is a subcategory of other categories as well. It is just easier to fit the category into different subcategory schemes than it is the photo. However, these reasons do not seem to be your concern. You seem to feel that only persons you as an administrator think are important can have their own category. I do not believe that is Commons policy. May we begin by your stating why as administrator you think it is? Do not hesitate to reference the appropriate policy. Thank you.Botteville (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Oh! I forgot to mention. Important in my decision is the fact that these names in the "people from" set of categories appear also at the county and state level as well as in other subcategories. Many of these use alphabetic lists. The subcat alphabetizes really well; the pic name does not. That is why I use subcat names to standardize. But, as you stated it, this is not the issue! Unless you care to restate the issue, it is the importance of the person. I look forward to hearing the reasons for this value system or else a retraction of the question. I welcome other views of course, but I do not see this as an issue or as needing to be fixed. Thank you.Botteville (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Excuse me ... (one more time) I looked up the list under which this picture originally appeared, and what do you think I found? Numerous categories without any pictures at all, and several categories with only one picture. So, these circumstances impell me to retiterate, why do you single out THIS picture? Considering that you have been an administrator for some years and ought to have reasons for what you do, I think you owe an answer. Thanks.Botteville (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Cause I orientate myself on en:WP notability and never saw lower ranks to relevant expect when they had some media attention. But I checked him on google and didn't found anything which would make him notable.--Sanandros (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:Notability is not really applicable on commons as notability cannot be really checked and depends very much on the context/scope of a particular wikipedia; if it concerns a small wikipedia language group in the forests that has only one million speakers, the rules for notability might be completely different and unverifiable. While I support the logic of Botteville, a soldier that happens to be referenced on a military photo is a bridge too far. There are little or no chances that we will ever see more pictures or an article on that person. I guess that we could distil easily tens of thousands of categories of the military images, none of them really relevant for our client wikipedias. And I guess that chances are low that even his mother would recognise that person. --Foroa (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with my logic, which is, as you say, that notability does not apply. Now let's consider your logic. The gist of your argument is - correct me if I misstate - that specific subcategories should not be assigned to persons for whom in your opinion no articles are likely to be written or other photos be downloaded. Again, there is not, and never has been, any such policy on Commons. This view is strictly your opinion, which means that the two of you are trying to "pull rank" on me; that is, you are trying to force your judgement over my judgement on no other grounds than that it is yours. That is not WM policy, whether Commons or WP. My judgement should have equal weight with yours no matter what your rank on WM, short of James Wales. But Wales has a non-interference policy except in matters he deems it necessary to interfere. I think a brief review of the history of the matter is relevant. While looking for persons from Amesbury in the photos I found Day's. Day is from Amesbury, which means he also has to be from Massachusetts. ANY person from Amesbury and Massachusetts is qualified to go in those categories! I have found lots of people far less notable and far less frequent or likely to appear in an article. My main reason for creating this category is that Day appears in lists, such as "People from Massachusetts." He could not appear in lists without being in that subcategory! So, if you don't mind, while I find your personal opinions interesting, please address the utility of the category, or let it go by default. YOUR arguments - notability, frequency, probability of being used, seem to me NOT to concern categorization, but presence in the first place. I did not load this picture, I found it loaded. If you don't like it you should nominate it for deletion. All loaded pictures must have categories. If we do not allow this categorization, the picture will be hanging around various categories with only its original unsuitable category, a list. It will be a loose end never able to be cleaned up. Now for your other irrelevant arguments: Not even his mother would recognize him? Give me a break. He might say the same about you. So would my mother, but she's long gone, so we'll never know. For the rest, what are you saying, we are going to load tons of military pictures and not categorize them, or place them under one humungous category? But, WM WANTS these pictures categorized! Your interference in this matter is not according to policy and crosses the line in my opinion into personal domination. I might add as a note, if you personally do not like the American military, you may not let it influence you and still be neutral. I believe neutrality applies to both houses.Botteville (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:J Sainsbury[edit]

Is there a difference between this category and Category:Sainsbury's. Or is this duplication? Oxyman (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The parent company is still formally named "J Sainsbury plc" but the vast majority of their branding is as "Sainsbury's". Look closely at the HQ pictures, even that is branded as "Sainsbury's business centre". I support merging to Category:Sainsbury's. the wub "?!" 14:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Summary[edit]

edit Commons:Categories for discussion/summary list