Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2011/01

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2017 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2020 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2021 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2022 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2023 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2024 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Archive January 2011

Category:Mount Tambourine, Queensland

[edit]

Reasons for discussion request Typo- cat has been replaced --Crusoe8181 (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish Revival Style architecture in Australia

[edit]

Misnamed cat; correct title is Category:Mission Revival Style architecture in Australia (may be empty, will soon be filled with Queensland State Library images). --Cerebellum (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Hermann_Bödeker

[edit]

Please delete (category name was wrong) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Joergens.mi. --rimshottalk 22:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Karl-Thiele-Weg_(Hannover

[edit]

Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Arminuswerft_(Hannvoer)

[edit]

Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Leine-Verbindungskanal

[edit]

Please delete (wrong name) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Lindener_Stichkanal_(Hannover)

[edit]

Please delete (wrong name) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Tischbachstraße_(Hannover)

[edit]

Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fourth_Regional_Conference_of_Wikimedia_Serbia

[edit]

lopobvwe 62.194.19.121 11:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what is exactly problem with this? -- Bojan  Talk  15:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks rational. Closed. --  Docu  at 18:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Hannover_Nordstadt

[edit]

Please delete (Category and name was not wright) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Foroa 20 January 2011. --Achim (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Welfenschloss

[edit]

Please delete (new category now is Category:Welfenschloss (Hannover)); indeed there is a second one Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Former_Serials,_periodicals_and_journals_from_Hanover

[edit]

Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Commons WikiProjects

[edit]

I can't see any difference between this category and Category:WikiProjects. I suggest merging this one into that one, which is larger. Also, the Commons identifier beforehand is unnecessary, so "Category:WikiProjects is a better name for it.--Chaser (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Hi. I created this category in par with "Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects" at en.wiki. The "Commons" prefix helps avoid confusion with Commons-content and other content. I have requested CD to move the contents to this category from "Category:WikiProjects", but I guess that hasn't been done yet... Rehman 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think we're in agreement. All I'm asking is to move the content of this category to the other one. If you agree that we should migrate the content to Category:WikiProjects, then it can easily enough be done manually. Oh, I just noticed that you created the category today. Sorry about that. I think since you created it, we could just close the CFD and migrate them. You can decide whether you want to delete the old category or leave a {{Category redirect}}.--Chaser (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood. I meant to keep this category, and delete or redirect Category:WikiProjects... Rehman 03:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, you're right. I opened this to respond with several other CFDs and then didn't re-read it before replying. Anyway, I don't care which category we use, I just thought it was silly that there were two. I'll withdraw this so you can carry on with moving things into this category. Pardon the distraction.--Chaser (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn.--Chaser (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Buildings_in_Russia

[edit]

Since there is no Freedom of Panorama (FOP) in Russia per Commons:Deletion requests/Kotelnicheskaya, this category and all it contains (except those files tagged {{PD-RusEmpire}}) should be deleted.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment "Stop! Don't delete photo of buildings! Amendments allowing FOP for buildings will adopt in future." at COM:FOP#Russia by TarzanASG (talk | contribs) [1].   — Jeff G. ツ 19:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion and salting (at the very least). Appoint Jeff G. as lifetime enforcer. Add "geography" to banned list, too (single-purpose accounts like yours truly often hide buidings, cars and telegraph poles in "streets" and "valleys"). NVO (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "single-purpose accounts like yours"? I have made over 9,200 edits to this project over nearly four years.[2]   — Jeff G. ツ 20:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec) Read in full: "like yours truly" and what's the point of this edit count contest? Back to the subject, I was dead serious. Since commons is overwhelmed by lunacy and inconsistency, perhaps wikipedias need a different image depository. In which case large chunks of data can be safely killed here and restored elsewhere. Right now it's done by manually duplicating files from commons onto local wikipedias, - but it's time to speed up migration. Better sooner then later NVO (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep First, no need to hurry because of the (maybe) upcoming changes in Russing law. Let's wait until it's adopted or not. Second, when keeping at least PD-RusEmpire as suggested we cannot delete the category. --SibFreak (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sib, if you play the PD-1918 card, Jeff G. will demand the names of the authors (example). Sysops will have their way anyway, so the question is: how to respond to a wholesale deletion, rather than how to delay it. NVO (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep first of all even Russian law allow to make photos of old buildings - and there are a lot of such pictures in this category --MaryannaNesina (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep First, any deletions should be made strictly on an individual basis, because many buildings of the images in this category are in PD, and some of them are not the focal point of the image. Secondly, there is clear intent of Russian legislature to introduce changes in the law allowing FOP in Russia in the nearest future. Third, anyway there is no clear judicial practice regarding enforcement of the current vague legal situation with Russian FOP. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pure lunacy. Most buildings in the category predate 1917. --Ghirlandajo (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buildings from before 1917 must be kept anyway; also whatever was built after 1917 by the architechts who died before 1942 is PD and must be kept (even though these files have not been tagged by {{PD-RusEmpire}}). Unless somebody wants to check every file in the category, I would suggest to keep it and to nominate specific buildings.--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Most building's design is in PD. Jeff, you should inspect every photo separately (if you want, certainly)! -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per above. "no Freedom of Panorama (FOP) in Russia" is generally teorethical argument for building photo. There is no trusted judicial opinion or court practice, and thus are now preparing amendments to the Civil Code, which in the near future should ensure the freedom of panorama in explicit form. In addition, this category contains many old buildings, images of which are in the public domain. I ask for a moratorium to deletion reqwuests based on "no freedom of panorama in Russia" prior to the coming changes in the Civil Code of Russia. --Kaganer (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It seems OK to remove the category, however many files are well in PD and must be kept unless proved they break the russian laws. I'd like to see what russian laws are violated for each file under question.--Vissarion (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. Dumb nomination. There are many old buildings in Russia. --Pauk (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Perhaps the request starter does not know that in Russia there is still also a lot of buildings built in the 19th, 18th century or even earlier. They are all PD and not protected. Deleting the whole category content is similar nonsense as if you e.g. would delete everything that currently is in Category:Human sexuality just to get rid of porn. A.S. 11:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. I am against, because this nomination is on the verge of disruptive behaviour. Any files may have problems with licanse, but you must nominanate conrete images. Let us nominate category United States for deletion - it is unbeautiful and unnecessary images! SmesharikiAreTheBest (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. per. Pauk. --Skydrinker (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily kept per above. More than 20 000 pictures were nominated at once and quite a bit of them are absolutely ok. FOP copyvio should be nominated for _regular_ deletion (speedy deletion is not for suspected FOP copyright violations as decided there) on case by case basis, because there are numerous de minimis, {{PD-trivial}}, {{PD-Russia-2008}}, {{PD-RusEmpire}} cases and so on. We already have a history of striking down of such indiscriminate meganominations (see e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Skyscrapers in Dubai), because such nominations are essentially unmanageable. Trycatch (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Lower_Saxony_in_the_21th_century

[edit]

Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, obvious misspelling. --rimshottalk 18:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Symbols

[edit]

The did your key 74.133.10.157 14:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to discuss about this category? --rimshottalk 20:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No reason given. --rimshottalk 20:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Johannes-der-Täufer-_Kirche_(Hannover)

[edit]

Please delete (wrong written by copiing) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. In the future, for uncontroversial misspellings, just use {{Bad name}}. --rimshottalk 20:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Karl_Friedrich_Wunder_postcards_back_sites

[edit]

Please delete (wrong written: mysterios):) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, misspelling. --rimshottalk 18:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Phillip_Holzmann

[edit]

Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please use User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands for category renames.
If a category was already moved, in general, you can just add {{Category redirect}} to the old name. --  Docu  at 11:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, your discussion requests are not very explicit. More explanation would be helpful, for this one, it would help if you would at least mention how you think it's correctly written (and link a WP article). Note that this can be done in any language. --  Docu  at 06:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, misspelling. --rimshottalk 18:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Vitraux_de_la_cathédrale

[edit]

to delete - the right category is : Stained glass windows of Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Rouen Reinhardhauke (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Si la bonne cétégorie est celle citée, je ne voie pas de problème pour la corriger. C'est juste qu'étant français, j'ai mis le nom en français.--Giogo (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 17:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Márcio_Thomas_Bastos

[edit]

nominating for deletion as incorrect name, should be pt:Márcio Thomaz Bastos, also unnecessary cat as it has no affluents and its only file would be File:Thomaz Bastos.jpeg Santosga (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Depots_of_Saint_Petersburg_Metro

[edit]

For the same reason it rains, practically 70.153.123.49 16:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to discuss about this category? --rimshottalk 17:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No reason given. --rimshottalk 20:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Nikki_Sexx

[edit]

Nikki Sexx 94.236.137.135 17:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, and? Powers (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. That's a IP comeing by every day and posting nonsense DRs. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept As Saibo said, continuing nonsense DR. Tabercil (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Orli-Wald-Allee

[edit]

Please delete (wrong category name) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Koblenzer_Straße

[edit]

Please delete (wrong category name) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Stained_glas_windows_of_Église_Notre-Dame-de-Lorette_(Paris)

[edit]

please delete - the right category is: Stained glass windows of Église Notre-Dame-de-Lorette (Paris GFreihalter (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, wrong name. In the future, for uncontroversial misspellings, just use {{Bad name}}. --rimshottalk 15:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Kröpcke

[edit]

Please delete (we have a new category) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Foroa 20 January 2011. --Achim (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Aerial_views_of_Hanover

[edit]

Please delete (wrong name) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Église_Saint-François-Xavier-des-Missions-Étrangères

[edit]

todelete - the right category is: Église Saint-François-Xavier (Paris) Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Foroa -- Common Good (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Dachenhausenpalais_(Hannover

[edit]

Please delete - had been a mistake (sorry) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{Speedy}} for typing errors instead. --ŠJů (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Stained_glassd_windows_of_Elijah

[edit]

please delete - my fault! Reinhardhauke (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For simple typing errors, use {{Speedy}} instead of delete discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia_Campus_Ambassador_training_in_San_Francisco,_January_2011

[edit]

what ist important from 63 files? Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This category collects images taken at the Wikimedia Foundation offices, during the Campus Ambassadors training as part of an effort to show what the Wikimedia Foundation is doing in terms of advancing use of free knowledge encyclopedias in the university setting. If that is not in scope of Wikimedia Commons, the scope need to be expanded. Or it may be that the deletion request was a little hastily made, perhaps.// Hannibal (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This set of photos documents the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. It's important in the same way photos from meetups and Wikipedia 10th anniversary parties are important: it supports the projects by documenting and supporting the contributors.--ragesoss (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's stupid I know, but I would like to be untagged. For personal / historical reasons I do not like pictures of me to be googleable. I guess this goes against openness, so that's a paradox. Maybe my name could be coded so it looks the same on the wiki, but it confusing to the google? Let me know what you think. Sincerely, Saudade7 (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC) (the girl who almost won citadels).[reply]
 Keep. No reason to delete the included photos en bloc, no reason to remove the category. --ŠJů (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. -- Common Good (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Damas_Towers

[edit]

This is a broken redirect. 84.62.200.57 11:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Deleted. by Foroa. Please use {{Speedy}} next time. -- Common Good (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Hanns-Lilie-Platz_(Hannover)

[edit]

Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Please use {{Speedy}} next time. -- Common Good (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:925_Jahre_Hückeswagen

[edit]

Incorrect category name: must be in english because this event has no specific designation 93.211.77.143 18:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep [3] --4028mdk09 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Sock puppet, 925 Jahre Hückeswagen is a propper German name for a German event (already linked). Giving this German event an English name is simply nonsense. -- Ies (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Ies said it. --Wuselig (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Ies said it. --Carlomorino (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this categories must be in english: "Category names should generally be in English (see Commons:Language policy). However there are exceptions." But which exception should be given here? I propose a reomval to Category:925th Jubilee of Hückeswagen. --80.187.106.139 20:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I learned something new: The translation of "should generally be" is "must". --Wuselig (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name kept. This is the proper name of the event, no need to translate it. --rimshottalk 22:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Škoda_1000_MB_de_Luxe

[edit]

empty category alofok* 19:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The category name can be good but the subtype isn't enough different to have its own category. (As appears through fulltext search, only ca 2 images would appertain here now.) A gallery page would be a better way how to group images according to subtypes and detailed variances. --ŠJů (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "de Luxe" is only a version of the equipment. Nothing else. alofok* 20:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --rimshottalk 20:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Vehicles by color

[edit]

Such categories are pointless, as there's no use of them - I believe that categorizing vehicles by color is not encyclopedic at all. There's no way that we'll ever list all possible color combinations. Commons is not flickr nor somebody's private repository where he can create absurd taxonomies for amusement.


The same reasoning applies for deletion of all categories inside of it, and all categories listing vehicles by color (some of them): 

--Peter.shaman (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is a media repositary, so it is normal to have categories by visual aspects. Doing that per country might be an overkill indeed. --Foroa (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized that everyone (per Foroa) seems to agree to the removal of all the "cars by color and bodystyle by country and city". Am I correct? Mr.choppers (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. For a separate discussion on by country categories, feel free to start a new CFD. Wknight94 talk 04:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:LibreOffice

[edit]

-- Mark85296341 (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reason is missing. --ŠJů (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep - Large software project, increasing in prominence. AnonMoos (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I think Mark85296341 was trying to nominate for deletion his screenshot, which he did 23 minutes later. --AVRS (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, mistaken deletion request. --rimshottalk 22:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Maps_of_canals_in_France

[edit]

a category "French canal maps" exists; they need to be joined Fr.Latreille (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

category:French canal maps has been delete by Foroa. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 09:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, and keep the other one deleted. No real reason to prefer one over the other. --rimshottalk 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Le_Noyer

[edit]

name is ambiguous (another Le Noyer exists) ; should be named "Le Noyer (Hautes-Alpes)" Fr.Latreille (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguated, --rimshottalk 17:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Iron_truss_fhishbelly_beam_bridges

[edit]

I think it's wrong written Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done the "fishy" typo is gone now, see Category:Iron truss fishbelly beam bridges --:bdk: 06:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed, --rimshottalk 17:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:FV_Biberach

[edit]

Out of scope category: The club "FV Biberach" is not within the Commons' project scope. 80.187.107.25 20:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out here; what is FV Biberach? Powers (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There [4]. Thanks and Greetings. --Bene16 (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A football club (350 members) in en:Biberach an der Riss. Had it's good time in the 70s. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If the German and French Wikipedias both have an article on the club, then it is indisputably within Commons' scope. Speedy keep. Powers (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are two Wikipedia articles that deal with the club "FV Biberach", I think this category has its eligibility. I suggest to keep this category. The category name seems to be OK, too. Furthermore, it would be a nice contribution if somebody can contribute more photographs in order to fill this category. --High Contrast (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, if there is at least one Wikipedia article, the subject is notable enough. --rimshottalk 06:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:José_Thomaz_Nonô

[edit]

empty cat of a politician with only local notability, it is not foreseeable that there will be a need for this cat, that already exists since 2005. Santosga (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty category, may be recreated if images of him are uploaded on Commons. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Disneyland_Hotel_at_Disneyland_Resort_Paris

[edit]

No images. 84.62.200.57 10:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, might just want to {{Speedy}} it next time. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Judges_of_the_United_States_Court_of_Appeals

[edit]

This should be courts of appeals (plural). That phrase should also probably be lowercase. See en:United States courts of appeals. Chaser (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support, on both counts. This should also happen for Category:United States Court of Appeals. --rimshottalk 18:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've roped that one in, too. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has a page with the same capitalization and number (courts).--Chaser (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support renaming to Category:Judges of the United States courts of appeals. MKFI (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed, straight-forward change. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cornell_University_ILR_School

[edit]

The official name of the school is the "New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations" and the category name is meaningless outside its context. The abbreviation ILR should be spelled out, as the English Wikipedia article title was for several years until it was unilaterally shortened last month. Thanks, 71.107.87.78 06:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. The current naming of this category aligns with the consensus established on the English Wikipedia here. Therefore, please leave category as is. —Eustress talk 00:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Commons avoids acronyms and other local abbreviations. --Foroa (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved, to avoid acronyms and because Eustress's considerable argument doesn't apply anymore. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Festivals_of_Bangalore

[edit]

Empty category. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I guess any content it did have has already been deleted or moved, can be recreated if needed. Would have been speedly deleted it myself.--KTo288 (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, not empty anymore. --rimshottalk 18:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Hummer_vehicles

[edit]

Should be called Category:Hummers. Same categorization scheme as Category:Humvees. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's called Hummer vehicles, like all automobile brand categories. --MB-one (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, like all VEHICLE (not just automobile) brand categories. But yes, I support MB-one's intention to retain. As there have been no other changes in months, and as there is no consensus to move this, I will remove the tag. Ingolfson (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hummer vehicles is much more clear, especially in an international context. --Foroa (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, no consensus for change. --rimshottalk 22:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Women_named_Barbara

[edit]

Also:

Wikimedia Commons is not a forename database. For a list of people by the name Barbara (and similar categories) you may NOT collect all people and all content related to them in a category but you may create a list at the appropriate place in Wikipedia. Martin H. (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there's too many pointless categories and that creates only clutter. Similar to this is my request for deleting: [5].Peter.shaman (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I think it's a collection from Category:People by given name. Still, the question remains why these 11 categories of female names should be deleted and not the whole hierarchy of Category:People by given name, male and female. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between sorting people by forename and sorting people by gender. The two categories obviously follow a different approach at the moment. --Martin H. (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't; there are many entries in those queries which are not "Women named Foo", and for people with multiple first names it's conceivable that they won't show up in such a query; then there's Category:Ida Maria as Category:Women named Maria. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ida Maria was just sorted wrong a few days ago? --Martin H. (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, as useless categorization. These women really don't have anything in common (well, besides the forename, of course) that it's worth categorizing for. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Oryzomys_perenensis, Category:Oryzomys megacephalus, Category:Oryzomys seuanezi

[edit]

Outdated names; no images left in these categories after I put File:Distribution Oryzomys megacephalus-group.PNG in Category:Hylaeamys Ucucha (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC) & 17:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC) In cases of synonymy, you can use "catredirect" as for example here. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 23:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Horses_in_human_activities_through_ages

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

Category with a unsuitable name and scope. What is it supposed to contain? AndreasPraefcke (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that wouldn't be covered in the existing Category:Use of horses. I suggest the content of this cat be merged into that category or relevent subcategory. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Guys ! The intention was to create a more "historical" than "horsed" category - having in mind a future entry in the french wikipedia project bearing that title and studying that topic to illustrate. So just "Use of horse" would be a bit too much/large in scope and not "historical" enough. A sub-cat of "Use of horses" ??? Thib Phil (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The phrase "through the ages" does not exclude recent times. When something becomes "historical" may be vague and open to different interpretations. Perhaps you could create more specific subcategories for time and/or place? For example something like "Use of horses in the 19th century" or "Use of horses in Ancient Rome", etc? Just a suggestion. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea - should be interesting indeed ! Will try, using above mentioned cat as a "meta-cat". But I have first to finish the cavalry's history. THX Infrogmation ! Thib Phil (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A meta-subcategory Category:Use of horses by period or a simple subcategory Category:History of use of horses would be more compatible category names. --ŠJů (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed to Category:History of use of horses, original unintuitive name deleted. Pitke (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Kate Gleason Hall (Rochester Institute Technology)

[edit]

Over-categorization. It removes important images from the main university category and hides them in a subcategory. And is a separate category really necessary for just two images? The building doesn't even have its own article on Wikipedia. --Powers (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, many buildings have separate categories without articles on wikipedia & I'm sure this one will grow with time. Many cats are set for future growth. Since this category is a sub-cat of the main university category, I don't see how it hides images. FieldMarine (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are enough images in the main category that users looking for images of the campus are likely to ignore the subcategory. It's much more useful to have them all in the main category. Powers (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, it's more useful for someone unfamilar with the university to have them organized in a subcat, but that is a personal opinion. FieldMarine (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the issue that Gleason Hall is only a small portion of one of the photos depicted; even if this category is kept, that photo should be in both the subcategory and the parent category. Powers (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but naturally some photos will need to lie in both cat and subcat. TheGrappler (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some? There are only two. So you want a subcategory for a single image? Why keep that single image out of the main category? Powers (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The file is still in the main category, but under a subcategory. In this case, a subcat that better organizes the files in the main cat & makes it easier to search for ones of a similar subject. It is not uncommon for buildings to have their own category. Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sequestering a single image in a subcategory is not better organization. It unnecessarily hides it from people browsing the parent category. Powers (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Buses_by_year_of_registration

[edit]

Is it reasonable to have such a category tree? I mean it is surely impossible to find out the year when a bus was built for the majority of buses that can be photographed. Especially this category seems quite superfluous. Which encyclopedic value lies behind a category ""Buses by year of registration by country""? The images on Commons and its categories must meet the project scope that seems not to be achieved here. 80.187.107.144 22:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more useful part of this is probably Category:Buses in the United Kingdom by year of registration (2001 to 2051) as it uses the license plate of a bus to identify that. --  Docu  at 11:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's reasonable to have a category tree by year when was the bus built. We can discuss what category-name is most suitable for such purpose. Year of registration is the year when the individual vehicle was oficially admitted to traffic. If we should differentiate old buses and new buses, this year is the crucial criterium. Terms "registrated" can be considered as equivalent to "introduced into service", eventually "produced" ("manufactured"). Of course, not every bus can be categorized by all existing criteria: type, operator, bus line or net, year of registration, year of taken the photo, color, specific feature (advertisement, equipment...) etc. In some countries exist many fans which gather such information (see http://seznam-autobusu.cz/ for buses in the Czech Republic), in some countries exist official lists or significant marking (as license plates in UK) etc. We have to put up with the fact that only some of buses can be categorized by this year. But it doesn't mean that such categories are not useful. Even if such category contain only one percent bus photos from the country, it can give a good representation what buses were built is such period. --ŠJů (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/06/Categories by place or year of construction for a related discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when a (British) bus changes hands, from owner to another - do they always retain old plates (or the original timestamp?). NVO (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As with other motor vehicles in the UK, buses are given a registration number (known as a "mark") not at the time of manufacture, but at some point between the initial retail sale and the first use on the road, and this mark stays with the vehicle until it is either de-registered or re-registered. De-registration only occurs if the vehicle is destroyed or exported; but re-registration is comparatively rare, and is usually done for vanity reasons (e.g. so that the mark matches the owner's name and/or initials).
When a vehicle is first registered, the mark will incorporate some form of date coding: between 1 February 1963 and 31 August 2001 this was a letter (suffixes were used until 31 August 1983, prefixes thereafter), but since 1 September 2001 has consisted of a two-digit number (i.e. 11 for vehicles first registered in the period 1 March 2011 to 31 August 2011; 60 for vehicles first registered in the period 1 September 2010 to 28 February 2011; etc.). For example, this coach was first placed in service in April 1965, and its body number (653006) suggests 1965 manufacture. The photo was taken less than a year ago, but it still bears the original mark GUP 743C, where the suffix letter C denotes 1 January 1965 to 31 December 1965.
Re-registered vehicles cannot be given a mark suggesting that it is newer than it really is. So, a bus bearing a 10 mark may be re-registered with a 09 mark, but not with a 11 mark. This coach was first placed in service in April 1972, and its body number (728388) suggests 1972 manufacture. Accordingly, it was originally given the mark DOE 111K (K=1 August 1971 to 31 July 1972), but was later re-registered SCK 56K (K again, no change of year) and again re-registered VAL 466G (G=1 August 1968 to 31 July 1969, i.e. older than K) - this is a vanity mark chosen so that the first three letters match the manufacturer's model designation - the chassis is a Bedford VAL. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But many buses have those personalised numberplates to include the companies initials so the plate is not a good indication. Agathoclea (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, personalised registration marks do exist on buses, but they're certainly in the minority. One operator, en:Oxford Bus Company, normally books registration marks including the letters "OXF" - but always ensures that the year letter/number matches the true age of the vehicle. Today in Oxford I observed HF11 OXF on a 2011-built bus - one of a batch. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:County_Road_509_(Brevard_County,_Florida)

[edit]

Only two items, none of which are photos of the road. This is an unnecessary level of subdivision. Imzadi 1979 → 19:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:County_Road_511_(Brevard_County,_Florida)

[edit]

Only two items, none of which are photos of the road. This is an unnecessary level of subdivision. Imzadi 1979 → 19:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Or (heraldry)

[edit]

There was mentioned in the discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/02/Coats of arms by tinctures by the way, that "according to en.wp: Or is frequently spelt with a capital letter (e.g. Gules, a fess Or) so as not to confuse it with the conjunction or." I emphasise, frequently, not ever.

This statement in the en:Or (heraldry) article has no specific source and is too vague. Capitalization (spelling) of other tinctures was also not clarified. I think, it looks very strangely when one of tinctures is with capital letter and all others are not. The reason "not to confuse it with the conjunction or" seems to be not acute as regards Commons categories.

There exist about 32 "Or" categories with capital letter and about 110 categories with small "or". Names which begin with the word "Or" are not counted. --ŠJů (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good finding. While I generally don't like lower/upper case mixups, I can live with the preferences of the Heraldic specialists. --Foroa (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I found, the main criterium is not the type of category and context but that category branches built by Ö prefer "O" and category branches built by BrightRaven, VIGNERON Skim and some others prefer "o". I see no other distinction between Vert a saltire Or and Vert a fess or than who created them. It would be strange to deal with one rename request o→O if there exist 110 other categories with "o". (This request was why I began to ocupy by this.) I'm not sure that personal preferences of one or two users can be considered itself as representating whole heraldry without relevant sources, references, arguments. We haven't judge which user is more "specialist" but who bring better reasons and solutions.--ŠJů (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I only created one of these categories. I used capital O to be consistent with all the supercategeries for combinations of tinctures. That is also why I suggested moving a category. But then I had not realised that there are so many categories with lower case o. I have no real preference. Renaming the supercategories (and a few subcategories) to use lower case seems like an equally good solution. /Ö 14:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the only reason to use capital O is to avoid confusion with the conjunction 'or', I think that risk is small. (Unless we start getting more long and complicated category names like Category:Per fess Gules and Argent in chief a lion passant Or and in base a kris and kampilan saltirewise of the first hilted Sable.) /Ö 14:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best choice is to rename all categories with Or in categories with or. --Massimop (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I’m not a specialist of english typography but someones (who?) tell me to use Or instead of or in order to avoid confusion with or (argent or Or and not Argent or or). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'm creating new cats with small "or", but I have no preference. Please tell me if any conclusion is reached (in case I miss it) so that I would abide to whatever is decided.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose It's quite usual to see Or capitalised in heraldry; I think I would prefer to see the lowercase "or"s capitalised, rather than the other way round. — OwenBlacker | Discussion 10:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I agree with Mr Blacker above: if we are to be consistent, this ought to be in favour of capitalising the tincture's name. Even if there might be a smaller risk of confusing the tincture with the conjunction in Commons file names and categories, this is largely irrelevant because the convention is old and widespread in the field of heraldry and we ought to follow the example of professionals. Indeed, some authorities capitalise all tinctures (see examples here), perhaps for the sake of consistency, but I understand most only do this for Or. Waltham, The Duke of 12:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Or is customarily capitalized, even when the other tinctures are not. As far as capitalizing the remaining tinctures, that is a preference. Η936631 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any strict rule in the conventions of English-language heraldic "blazoning" saying that one or the other is definitely incorrect, but I think I would probably prefer capitalized "Or" for general clarity... AnonMoos 14:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Is this still running? It's been over two months without a comment and I think there is something of a consensus here. Waltham, The Duke of 08:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose In official heraldry blasoning languages all colours and metals are written with capital letters, so it should all be Or.137.224.252.10 06:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I suppose you have a source for such an affirmation?-- Darwin Ahoy! 09:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose If this is still running. As many of us will know there is little or no punctuation in a blazon. This can be seen in most grants of arms. If a shield is blazoned correctly the tincture comes at the end of the phrase (Argent two bars between as many mullets Sable). So we would know that not only are the bars Sable, but the two mullets are as well. It also tells us the relationship between the bars and the mullets - in fact everything we need to know to be able to draw it. And we know that the information is complete because the tincture is at the end.
Not so long ago it was the custom on English and Scottish grants to skriven all the lettering in black except for names, the start of paragraphs and the first capitalised letters of the tinctures. To that end ALL tinctures should be capitalised - at least when dealing with UK heraldry or the blazon is written in English. Kiltpin (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Names with a capital letter

[edit]
Rename Category:Argent and Or in heraldry to Category:Argent and or in heraldry (169 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Argent, azure, Or in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, or in heraldry (1,425 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Argent, azure, gules, Or in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, gules, or in heraldry (2,606 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Argent, azure, gules, Or, sable in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, gules, or, sable in heraldry (1,162 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Argent, azure, gules, Or, sable, vert in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, gules, or, sable, vert in heraldry (405 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Argent, azure, gules, Or, vert in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, gules, or, vert in heraldry (797 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Argent, azure, Or, sable in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, or, sable in heraldry (496 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Argent, azure, Or, sable, vert in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, or, sable, vert in heraldry (143 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Argent, azure, Or, vert in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, or, vert in heraldry (402 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Argent, gules, Or in heraldry to Category:Argent, gules, or in heraldry (1,363 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Argent, gules, Or, sable in heraldry to Category:Argent, gules, or, sable in heraldry (1,161 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Argent, gules, Or, sable, vert in heraldry to Category:Argent, gules, or, sable, vert in heraldry (404 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Argent, gules, Or, vert in heraldry to Category:Argent, gules, or, vert in heraldry (702 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Argent, Or, sable in heraldry to Category:Argent, or, sable in heraldry (351 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Argent, Or, sable, vert in heraldry to Category:Argent, or, sable, vert in heraldry (188 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Argent, Or, vert in heraldry to Category:Argent, or, vert in heraldry (296 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Argent, purpure, Or in heraldry to Category:Argent, purpure, or in heraldry (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Azure and Or in heraldry to Category:Azure and or in heraldry (1,889 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Azure, gules, Or in heraldry to Category:Azure, gules, or in heraldry (1,074 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Azure, gules, Or, sable in heraldry to Category:Azure, gules, or, sable in heraldry (249 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Azure, gules, Or, sable, vert in heraldry to Category:Azure, gules, or, sable, vert in heraldry (56 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Azure, gules, Or, vert in heraldry to Category:Azure, gules, or, vert in heraldry (150 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Azure, Or, sable in heraldry to Category:Azure, or, sable in heraldry (204 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Azure, Or, sable, vert in heraldry to Category:Azure, or, sable, vert in heraldry (52 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Azure, Or, vert in heraldry to Category:Azure, or, vert in heraldry (170 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Azure a five rays Or to Category:Azure a five rays or (33 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Azure a fleur-de-lis Or to Category:Azure a fleur-de-lis or (77 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Gules and Or in heraldry to Category:Gules and or in heraldry (1,677 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Gules, Or, sable in heraldry to Category:Gules, or, sable in heraldry (615 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Gules, Or, sable, vert in heraldry to Category:Gules, or, sable, vert in heraldry (127 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Gules, Or, vert in heraldry to Category:Gules, or, vert in heraldry (297 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.
Rename Category:Vert a saltire Or to Category:Vert a saltire or (19 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.

Names with a small letter

[edit]

Rename all categories with lowercase "or" to uppercase "Or". King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Dogs_by_function

[edit]

This category appears to be a redundant duplicate of Category:Assistance dogs Benchill (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is currently lacking categories for sports dogs, hunting dogs, guardian dogs, showing dogs and sleigh dogs (some of which seem to not exist yet), which would at least for the most part not be suitable additions to the "assistance dogs" cat. Pitke (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to say that I've been tempted to move some of the "Assistance dogs" subcats elsewhere (probably "Use of dogs") since the contents of that cat seem counterintuitive for me and some cats seem placed there simply because no more general "Use of dogs" existed then. Pitke (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I thought it was finished. I agree categories like Military working dogs belong elsewhere, looking at Assistance dog I think all except Guide dogs ought to be moved. Benchill (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Category:Assistance dogs has been made a subcat of Category:Dogs by function, which includes dogs which are not necessarily assistance dogs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Overcast_days_in_Hong_Kong

[edit]

Overcast days? A whole cat structure? - a limited use category, and open to discussion for every single picture (if one would bother). Do we want that specific categories, with ambigous criteria? I very rarely propose deletions, but these ones I think go too far. No offense intended. Ingolfson (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I like the idea that there is a category describing the weather in images such as this (also include to the right of this comment). I'm less convinced that this needs to be in there too. --  Docu  at 08:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But could that not be done with a category like Category:Overcast weather, rather than creating a category tree which goes down into individual suburbs? Ingolfson (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably yes, but there are always people who like breaking down anything by country/city/district/street .. --  Docu  at 06:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think, local and regional categories by wheather have their usefulness as well as such categories by season (like Autumn in Giant Mountains, Snowfall in Paris etc.). When somewhere search images of his city or country of certain weather, a worldwide megacategory of such weather would be hardly useful itself. But they should be used primarily for such images where the weather or season peculiarity is very distinctive (or they can have a special reason if such weather is rare in involved area). I think, the category branch "Overcast weather" should have also some relation to the category Category:Clouds. --ŠJů (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made it a subcategory of Category:Overcast *shrugs*. The category is pointless if every photo taken on an overcast day in Hong Kong is in scope, so it needs a description at least. But then, Hong Kong seems to attract pointless categories. I just finished deleting all the "multistory buildings" categories, and I have to wonder about the use of Category:Walk up buildings in Hong Kong and Category:Hong Kong in the 2010s, where it seems that every photo taken in a particular year is in scope for one of its subcategories. ghouston (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention Category:Morning in Hong Kong and Category:Evening in Hong Kong. I'm surprised Category:Afternoon in Hong Kong is missing. ghouston (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Primitive_portraits

[edit]

POV category (a category "Portraits in naive art" would be ok where the naivity is the preferred style of expression (Rousseau etc.), but not this category where people include images they don't think to be good enough art by whatever standard) FA2010 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Primitive art" is normal word in art history without any merit rating. See termin in en:Naïve art#Characteristics, en:Primitivism, and Google books search. Primitive portrait is the term for portraits, 1) not absolutely right in anatomy and 2) created in regions far away from current culture center, (for example, Tudor portrait during the bloom of Italian Renaissance, Mexican provincial portrait during the times of Velasquez, portraits of Siberian merchants in the time of high classicism of Russian Empire; - so usually, not always, it is the provincial art). There also is a difference between naive art and provincial art see term in google books. As I'm art historian, this matter is known for me. I can find the catalogs of exhibition of primitive portrait (but now only in Russian).--Shakko (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Primitive portrait article at the en:w but some occurencies of this term exist. en:Primitive art is redirected to en:Tribal art and seems to have a very different meaning. --ŠJů (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is 2 kinds of primitive art: one is tribal (en:Primitive culture), and second is in Western culture, but by by untrained (provincial) artists (maybe word related here with en:Geometric primitive). Also please note the difference between naive and primitive portrait
  • Naive - by Pirosmani
    Naive - by Pirosmani
  • Primitive - by Russian anonymous
    Primitive - by Russian anonymous

Naive - more about non-trained authors in XIX-XX century, it's like the game in modern time. Primitive - from XV-XVI to XIX, painters who thought they are skilled, but they aren't, and it is absolutely serious. (Sorry for my poor English, apropos).Shakko (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so let's at least agree that this category needs a clear definition (it doesn't have any at the moment). --FA2010 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not well-defined. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Diagrams_of_route_shields

[edit]

Empty category. No need for this category, is covered by others. Admrboltz (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Diagrams of route signs and Category:Diagrams of route signs of the United States can be considered as full-featured and standard alternatives of this category. However, the whole category tree of route shields of the United States should be remade in order to be distinguished between all related files (including photographs) and diagrams of shields. + categories of the US MUTCD system should be more integrated into the world-wide categorization. --ŠJů (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus: Stale request. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:US_Army_Alpha_Unit_Shoulder_Sleeve_Insignia

[edit]

embarkation 98.222.0.127 12:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you asking? - SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking what 98.222 meant by "embarkation". Embarkation is not a reason for deletion or merging. Powers (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Upmerge contents to Category:Shoulder sleeve insignia of the United States Army. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:United States Marine Corps

[edit]

I use this category as illustrative of a broader issue of using the official name for an organization for the category name vice dogmatic use of the naming convention.

I have had several category names of organizations changed away from the official name of the organization based on the naming convention. This makes no sense to me. For example, the official name of the USMC is United States Marine Corps. If the naming convention was used, the category would be Marine Corps of the United States. I believe in use of a standard naming convention, but not when it changes a name away from the official name like in the example above. In the case where there is an official name of an organization, like the United States Marine Corps, the official name should override the naming convention.

I propose we add an exception clause to the naming convention for cases where there are official names for organizations that are used for category names. Thus, United States Marine Corps would be used (as already done in this case), instead of Marine Corps of the United States. Like in this example, the official name should be used vice the naming convention.

Comments on the overall issue of using official names vice naming conventions would be appreciated. FieldMarine (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Certainly keep USMC categories as they are. On a broader level, marines (or amphibious troops) cannot be as easily grouped together as air forces or coast guards, so it's hardly a case for dispute. NVO (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with FieldMarine. The names of organisations are proper names and we usually do not translate proper names, we would not do it for the given names of people so why for organisations. However although there is a significant overlap, the naming scheme of many of the categorisation schemes of organisation is not of the organisation's name but is descriptive of what it is. Taking amphibious forces as an example if we were to use the proper names in every instance there could be as many Infanteria de Marines as there are Spanish speaking countries, and how many people would be happy with Zhōngguó Rénmín Jiěfàngjūn Hǎijūnlùzhànduì. Since a simple translation of the name into English could still leave confusion: the logical conclusion is that category names be one:- a descriptive one and two:-be standardised into a formula that can easily be understood by those with minimal and better yet no English. For those of us for which English is our primary language this may seem redundant and for those with a special attatchment to a name simply perverse, e.g. the special pleading at Category:British Army, the formula Category:Army of the United Kingdom in this example is not to suggest that there is an organisation called the "Army of the United Kingdom" but merely be descriptive of the contents of the category. One compromise would be to use the formula for the main category with the familiar name e.g. Category:Air force of the United Kingdom. Intrestingly there would be a very good case for creating Category:Amphibious forces of the United States, and making Category:United States Marine Corps a sub-category of this category, there having been the Category:Continental Marines but also the amphibious divisions of the United States Army.--KTo288 (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No action taken. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bradley_IFV

[edit]

Rename as M2 Bradley. Rename Bradley CFV as M3 Bradley Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better leave this cat but create M2 and M3 subcats. If a version is not identified it should go to the main cat, all identified to their proper subcats. --Denniss (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The M3 Bradley variant isn't an IFV. We have renamed the M2/M3 Bradley article on Wikipedia to Bradley Fighting Vehicle so a Category:Bradley Fighting Vehicles is what is required. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On Commons we tend to use the baseline model as a mother category, and create sub-categories for variants with additonal categories as to what ecxactly they are. e.g M113 variants have the M113 APC category as a mother category even if they are not APCs.--KTo288 (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grrr, sorry I know its bad form to move things about without consensus being reached but Category:Bradley Fighting Vehicles is being categorised as a type of tank. I'm going to do some recatting, feel free to revert me if you must.--KTo288 (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for a rename. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Hanover

[edit]

Should this be moved to Category:Hannover? Cfd for December has been filled with a series of related requests.Some to delete subcategories that include the corresponding "(Hanover)" in its category name and had been moved manually to "(Hannover)". --  Docu  at 06:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support to "Hannover", in doubt you should take the origin spelling. It makes it easier to differ "Hannover" from the several "Hanovers".--Nonoh (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC) See the note in en:Hannover: "The German spelling (with a double n) is becoming more popular in English; recent editions of encyclopedias prefer the German spelling." So wp should also do.--Nonoh (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Hannover -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Grande_Dixence

[edit]

There is some lengthy circular discussion on how to transcribe this into a category system.

There are the following elements on the graphic:

The current structure had been stable for some time. (1) and (2) were created recently. --  Docu  at 02:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. This is part of the dispute being discussed at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Docu. Rehman 07:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scheme proposed by Rehman at 08:24 of 6 September 2010
 Support complete scheme and system hierarchy from User:Rehman. --Foroa (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, as nominator. Rehman 13:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current title seems closer to the one in use at Wikipedia and thus preferable.
Is there a reason why Fionnay Hydroelectric Power Station is a subcategory of Grande Dixence Dam rather than Cleuson-Dixence Complex or Cleuson Dam? --  Docu  at 06:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The plan by Rehman has been implemented. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Daewoo_Honker_2000/Honker_2000/Intrall_Honker/DZT_Honker_4x4

[edit]

Wouldn't it be better to choose ONE type name for the category instead of 4??? Use the most common one of those models and place redirects for the other ones. The description could explain which models should be included. 80.187.106.82 11:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/12/Category:Škoda 120 L (1987 - 1988)/120 LS (1986 - 1987)/120 GLS (1986 - 1987)/120 GL (1986 - 1988)/120 LX (1986 - 1987)/130 (1986 - 1988)/135 (1987 - 1988)/136 (1987 - 1988) for related discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using one name would be inaccurate because all of the pictures in this category could be of any of those 4 vehicles.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For Wikipedia, naming a category does not have to include every single possible variation of every photo in the category. An umbrella name, or the name of the first or most popular version, is currently the norm. The names of the images themselves will take care of the rest, along with the image descriptions. This is why there are descriptions in the files. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's confusing. Peter.shaman (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nest the cats in layers with each layer a reflection of the owner/manufacturer at the time, sub models can be shown by branches within the levels. For an example of what I mean see Category:Hughes Model 269 and follow the nesting to Category:Sikorsky S-300 (or vice versa). If it seems a bit complicated I can create and organise the cats which will be temporarily empty, and the files can be moved if aceptable.--KTo288 (talk)

Moved to Daewoo Honker 2000, with the other three as category redirects. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maps of the geography, Maps of geographical regions

[edit]

Previous discussions:

Maps of the geography

[edit]

All maps are geographical, "maps of the geography" is nothing else than "maps". For map themes should be used categories like Category:Administrative maps of Hungary, Category:Maps of subdivisions of Hungary, Topographic maps of Hungary, Category:Geomorphological maps of Hungary etc. Categories "Maps of the geography" should be deleted and the content should be moved to appropriate subcategories or to the main category "Maps of (country)" --ŠJů (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PANONIAN proposed to rename these categories to Maps of the physical geography of Hungary etc. However, we have no such categories in the category tree and no category of maps directly in Physical geography. It have a subcategory of Cartography which contain all maps and subcategory of Topography and Geomorphology which contain Topographic maps and Geomorphological maps. --ŠJů (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but that is just your personal point of view. There is simply no valid reason why some files should be located in main "Maps of the country" category and not in appropriate subcategory. If most maps related to named countries are located in subcategories then I see no reason why all of them should not be located in subcategories. It is wrong to left some files in main "Maps of the country" category because that would imply that such files are more important than others. When I created these categories named "Maps of the geography of" I had in my mind physical geography and, while I agree that this category name might not be best solution, I do not understand while you object to proposed new name "Maps of the physical geography of". If there are already categories for maps related to ethnic groups, linguistics or transport then I do not see why there should not be maps related to physical geography. There are many files and subcategories related to physical geography in Wikimedia and the the fact that we currently do not have an category tree related to physical geography is not an argument against creation of such tree. We can always create any new subcategory for any file and any new category tree and I will create such tree by myself if non-existence of that tree is a main problem here. Note that not all maps related to physical geography are suitable for "Topographic maps" or "Geomorphological maps" subcategories and thus they cannot be all covered by these subcategories as user ŠJů claiming, while solution that he proposing for these maps that they should be left in main "Maps of the country" category is worst possible. By proposing this solution user ŠJů in fact contradict to himself and recognizing that there are such maps related to physical geography that are not suitable for categories "Topographic maps" or "Geomorphological maps". So, what I am proposing here is existence of an category tree for maps related to physical geography which would contain subcategories named "Topographic maps", "Geomorphological maps", "Maps of the rivers", etc, as well as all other files that are not suitable for these subcategories. I repeat: Leaving such files in main category because "there is no proper subcategory for them" is wrong because such proper subcategory can be always created and because if all other files are in proper subcategories these ones should be too (otherwise we would have an chaotic and confusing categorization and users would not know where to look for which files because we would not have any reasonable criteria which would decide which files should be in which category). I think that category "Maps of Serbia" is an example of good categorization where main category is empty and all files are located in appropriate subcategory: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Serbia If we return some of the files from subcategories to main category it would be a certain step backward, so I would rather suggest that user ŠJů propose name of a subcategory that would be suitable according to him instead of proposing complete annihilation of subcategory that contains files related to it. PANONIAN (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree ŠJů, in fact, PANONIAN, your intention is correct, but maybe we just did not do precise subclasses: lets look into Category:Maps of the geography of Hungary for example :
sorry for my bad expression, I hope you got my proposal right.. --W!B: (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
W!B:, Seems that you did not understood well the nature of the maps that are currently located in these categories. I am author of several maps there and regions like Banat, Bačka, Baranya, Jaszsag, etc are simply not subdivisions of Hungary or of any other country. They are just informal geographical regions without any official status and separate category for such regions should exist. Some other maps from that category (like those showing Alföld, Kisalfold or Westkarpaten Gliederung Skizze) might be classified under topography of Hungary, but maps that showing informal regions are neither maps that showing subdivisions neither maps that showing topography (these informal regions might include several different topographic areas). Regarding the proposals that maps of these informal regions are classified as "Maps of the regions of (add name of a country here)" that might create confusion in several cases. For example, Serbia also have official statistical regions (and some other countries have them too), so how we would make a difference between these formal and informal regions? The most logical solution would be creation of separate categories for both sorts of regions because if we classify all of them under "Maps of the regions of..." we might confuse users who could think that informal regions are also administrative ones. I am not strongly supporting any name of any category, thought. My basic opinion here is that we should have separate subcategories for all sorts of thematic maps, no matter of the exact names of these categories. In fact I have another proposal: we can use term "Maps of the informal regions" instead "Maps of geographical regions". Perhaps that would satisfy user ŠJů who objected to the usage of term "geographical"? Also, I am not strongly supporting term "Maps of the geography of" either, but if we delete such categories, we should move files that are located there to other proper subcategories. Due to the nature of current files located in the "Maps of the geography of" categories, more accurate categorization of these files would fall under "Maps of the informal regions of...", "Maps of the topography of..." or "Maps of the tourism of...". My basic and main objection to action of user ŠJů was that user ŠJů removed files from "Maps of the geography of Hungary" category and moved them back to main "Maps of Hungary" category instead to another proper subcategory. PANONIAN (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of geographical regions

[edit]

A pleonasm as well - all regions are geographic - administrave just as non-administrative. Sr.wiki uses the term "Geografski regioni" (= geographical regions, see sr:Šablon:Geografski regioni Srbije) but there exists no article sr:Geografski region and no sources for such terminology. The article sr:Регион doesn't mention some specific close term "geografski region". Regions can be specified as geomorphological, ekological and biological, ethnic, administrative, autonomous or self-governing, historic (former states or counties) etc., but "geographical regions" says nothing else than pure "regions". Can be found some relevant sources which support that such term is established and has a clear meaning in Serbia? --ŠJů (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. The fact that article named "Geografski region" does not exist in Serbian Wikipedia is not an argument for anything. Serbian Wikipedia also does not have an article about Azad Kashmir but that does not mean that this Pakistani province does not exist: http://sr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%BE%3ASearch&search=%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B4+%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80 Simple google search can show that term "geografski region" (geographical region) is used in both, Serbian and English, see this and this. Here you also have an dictionary definition which says that geographical region "is a demarcated area of the Earth" or "the geographical area under the jurisdiction of a sovereign state": http://www.thefreedictionary.com/geographical+region So, what exactly is a problem with usage of this term? There are plenty such geographical regions in Serbia (see this) and these regions are simply not administrative, geomorphological, ecological, biological, ethnic, autonomous, self-governing, or historic (or perhaps user ŠJů can find some other proper description for these regions?). Also, Serbia has a statistical regions too, so usage of simple term "region" as user ŠJů proposing would create confusion. If term "geographical region" is not acceptable for him, I would agree with any other suitable term that correctly describe these regions and that distinguish them from statistical regions (perhaps "geographical areas" is more suitable?). PANONIAN (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
just name it Category:Maps of regions of Serbia? - if Serbia has an officiary set of "geographical" regions, and another set of other types of regions, the scheme seems ok: I would prefer we name it Category:Maps of Geografski regioni of Serbia, not to confuse it with an commonspeaking english terms (anybody will understand that), in fact, we have the same in Austria, cf. file:Raumeinheiten Oberoesterreich V2.png, so Category:Maps of Raumeinheiten of Upper Austria would fit), or just like Category:Maps of the regions of Croatia
Category:Maps of subdivisions of Serbia should be for political and statistical elements (for EU, we put NUTS in there: I suppose, Serbia works on a NUTS compatible statistic system), cf. Category:Maps of subdivisions of Austria --W!B: (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said above, files located in categories "Maps of the geographical regions of..." are mostly informal regions without any official status. Maps that showing official statistical regions are already located in subcategory "Maps of administrative units of Serbia", but we have problem what to do with maps of unofficial or informal regions and how to differentiate them from official statistical regions. Is name "Maps of the informal regions of.." an suitable solution here? PANONIAN (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here you can see how many such informal regions you have only in Serbia: http://www.folklorsrbija.org/images/folklor_srbija_mapa.gif Map is not of best quality, but each word in that map represents one informal region, so it is clear that such informal regions are simply too widespread subject to be left without subcategory of their own. PANONIAN (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i think that this discussion is a really intersting one. I will try to involve there some users interesteds in cartography and earth sciences from Italian, French and English wikias: please, take a little more time to discuss it with us. Tahnks Ciaurlec (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of them have been upmerged and deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2011/01&oldid=126393707"