Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2011/04
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive April 2011
wrong name - should be Schleuse im Eidersperrwerk Mef.ellingen (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Move queued at CommonsDelinker. --rimshottalk 21:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Should be "Canal lock in Eidersperrwerk". --Foroa (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Right, it's not a name is it? --rimshottalk 19:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Should be "Canal lock in Eidersperrwerk". --Foroa (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
There are 8 bridges of 8-9 km, do we need categories every 100m ? ELEKHHT 08:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Also tagged:
- Category:8.0 kilometers bridges
- Category:8.2 kilometers bridges
- Category:8.3 kilometers bridges
- Category:8.9 kilometers bridges
Suggest merging all into Category:8 kilometer bridges. Probably all other categories larger than 1km could be merged the same way. --ELEKHHT 03:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Support merge, maybe in time there will be enough bridges, but for now there's just not enough justification. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)- Support merge. --ŠJů (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Merged bridge longer than 5 kilometer. – Kwj2772 (msg) 04:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused cat with unlikely redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- See de:Snamensk (Kaliningrad): "Snamensk (russ. Знаменск ; deutsch bis 1946 Wehlau" --Foroa (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep Such redirection is useful. In minds of many persons exists this out-of-date name. The current name is not easy effable and the memorization to not Slavs. --Starscream (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)- Keep. Correct, useful. --ŠJů (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Redirect kept, does seem useful. --rimshottalk 22:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Contains only copyright violations. 84.61.170.180 08:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Empty for longer time category: deketed. --High Contrast (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 09:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no encyclopedic value for such vaguely named categories 80.187.106.38 15:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is not vaguely named. This category is for BTR-60PB APCs that have been used by ZOMO and later the Polish Police and have been specially modified to be able to remove obstacles. So I would say this category does have encyclopedic value.
- Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Vehicles are not categorized by vehicle-mounted devices but by type. --High Contrast (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect category name: mustn't it be Category:Alstom locomotives without the "h" in Alstom??? 80.187.107.24 19:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- If I remember well, it was ALSTHOM (ALSsace-THOMson-houston) in the remote past, later it became GEC ALSTHOM. Sometime about 1998 they dropped the H and it became ALSTOM. Therefore "Alsthom locomotives" is historically correct. An option is to use a category redirect, so that both names work. SV1XV (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's right - as a solution I've moved the lot to Category:Alstom locomotives and created a redirect. Alstom appears to be the more commonly used term, ie the parent category has no "H".Imgaril (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Category redirect is a good solution. --rimshottalk 09:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Category same as Category:Wharves. IMHO, we need to eliminate one or the other & merge. We also need to add redirects so we avoid this issue in the future. --FieldMarine (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Both are equally correct, be arbitrary, merge, and turn one into a redirect. Personally, as a Commons category, I'd lean toward wharfs because non-native speakers are more likely to choose the more regular plural. (If I were writing something myself I'd lean toward wharves because I'm more conservative in my spelling.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with merge and redirect. Jmabel's suggestion sounds reasonable to me, unless there is an overriding linguistic reason the other should be preferred. Infrogmation (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Both categories have been redirected to Category:Wharves and quays. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
category redirects don't work (i.e. This category is now a subcategory of the category it is redirecting to.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing. That makes sense. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Issue fixed. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Choirs ? Any reason to keep this separate? ~ NVO (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with merge & add redirect. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. My English is guilty for not checking the existence of "Category:Choirs" :) --Millosh (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Merged, straight-forward proposal. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Contains only FOP violations. 84.62.193.214 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty category. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - These are not buildings called "avenue", they are buildings which are identified by their street address, which includes "avenue". It's hard to believe that the category has any real value, but if one insists on it, a better choice would be "builings identified by their street address", although that, too, is basically a make-work category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Concur completely with Beyond My Ken. For example Category:700 First Avenue, Seattle, isn't a building called [something] Avenue, it's a building known by its address, which happens to be on First Avenue. And, in fact, it has been known by a number of names, but I named the category "700 First Avenue" so as not to have the inevitable confusion that would arise from choosing any of its many names. - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- That is the case with a number of buildings which have been put into this category. For instance, 305 Second Avenue was originally the "Lying-in Hospital" and is now the "Rutherford Apartments". Using the street address for the building's category was a matter of convenience, but the building is not "named" 305 Second Avenue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, well said already. There may be some value in "Buildings known by street address", but listing "by a single word included in name" doesn't make much sense. NVO (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteJim.henderson 11:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Jeffrey Beall (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Collection of unused images of copyright game. Game has no article as far as I can tell. Guy 22:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- There are 9 million of unused images on Commons. One has to start with something. --Foroa (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty category. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Bo Diddley 24.183.207.140 09:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Charlie Patton seems ok to me. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Nothing done, no reason for discussion given, anyhow. --rimshottalk 09:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
category:Langscheid (bei Mayen) ist the same village GFreihalter 09:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I can't remember why I didn't notice the existing category, but the English name is preferable. The parentheses do not belong to the official name of the municipality and should therefore not be in German. English is the standard language of the Commons categories.--Leit 15:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, no disambiguation needed, for now. If needed, it would be more natural to disambiguate by country, state or Landkreis, in that order. --rimshottalk 09:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Contains only copyright violations. 84.61.170.180 18:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- If and when they are deleted for being copyright violations, then delete the category. You have to make the case against them being PD-ineligible first, and this is not the right place for that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- all are copyvios of a non-free TV show. Δ 03:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you think they're copying something copyrightable, put them up for DR. This is not a mass DR, none of the creators or watchers have been notified, and there are some subtle issues here; they're hardly screenshots.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Nominate the files for DR instead if you need, CFD is not the place to discuss such things. --Trycatch (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
These three categories, now emptied, are merely a doubling of Category:Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and Category:MBTA Bus Operations:
I see no reason to keep them. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. "Buses" is a subcategory of "bus transport" (e. g., a bus stop or a bus timetable or bus staff are not buses but are part of bus transport). Bus transport is a subcategory of public transport. MBTA is a transport operator which operates more kinds of transport. There may appear also buses of other operators or systems in Boston (in the past, in the future, atypic lines and non-line transport, private buses etc.). It's useful to make differentiate categorization by operator or transport system and categorization by city. They relate but aren't identical. – Btw., "MBTA Bus Operations" is a proper name of a company division or should be "MBTA bus operations"? I suppose, "MBTA bus operations" should be a subcategory of "Bus transport in Boston". "Buses of MBTA" should be a subcategory of "MBTA bus operations" and "Buses in Boston". --ŠJů (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I've moved several categories (trams, etc) into Public transport of Boston.
I personally think that MBTA Bus Operations should stay as such and NOT be split with "Buses on MBTA", but that's a separate matter and can be discussed elsewhere.
I now understand the purpose of these three categories, and have set them up so they're no longer duplicating the MBTA page. I withdraw the deletion nomination. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Closed as keep: Nominator (me) withdrew nomination and the sole vote was for keep. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Speeches :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- The intended use for this category is not redundant with "Speeches". Speech is for media files about the human behavior of speech; while speeches is for instances of oratory.--ragesoss (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Closed, these are two different concepts. I will add a description to the category to reflect that. --rimshottalk 13:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Clearview; the other one has the better name, so they should be merged. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Done, see en:Clearview. --Foroa (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Closed. Category:Clearview is now a disambiguation page. --rimshottalk 14:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
duplicate of populated Category:Wissenschaft (ship, 1969) Finavon (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- please delete or redirect. -- Docu at 20:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I redirected it for now. -- Docu at 10:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Redirect kept. --rimshottalk 20:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Should be renamed as Category:World War II submarine crews of Germany (note the II) or merged into Category:World War II submarines of Germany :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please issue {{Move}} request. --Foroa (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I created the category; the change of name seems perfectly reasonable and correct. Catsmeat 21:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I added a move request to CommonsDelinker. --rimshottalk 00:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:World War II submarine crews of Germany. --rimshottalk 00:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Category shall be deleted - duplicate of Category:Monuments and memorials to Stefan Rowecki Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 21:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what de definition for a criminal is for Commons, are is appropriate to maintain such a label ? See also here –Krinkletalk 09:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I'd say a "criminal" is a person who has been found guilty of a criminal offence under the law of a particular country. In the case of living people, there should be reliable evidence of such a conviction before such a category is used. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- For an encyclopedia wiki that isn't an issue but here on Commons we use little to no references, and I don't believe it is maintainable with the current system to start doing so. Are we going to be adding references to File description pages as reliable evidence whether a depicted person is a criminal? Are we going to create Reference sections on Category descriptions pages of persons? I'd say, no. Proposing to nuke these and similar categories and instead keep the categorization on Commons media related, Wikipedia is for informational content about the persons themselves. Except for descriptions like "Depiction of a criminal" (which could both mean fiction to non-fiction), describing a person in a photo as being criminal seems inappropriate for Commons in my opinion. Both due to the fact that it is maintainability in the current system and because it is ambiguous because there are also photos of people taken in a different country before they were considered to be a criminal, if they are later found guilty in another country, would that photo be a candidate for this category? –Krinkletalk 10:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
No consensus: Stale discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Name change to something like Category:2011 Tōhoku earthquake damage. I don't know if this has been discussed previously but since all the subcategories use that nomenclature, it's strange to have a different name for the parent. Pichpich (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- The parent category is Category:2011 Sendai earthquake. Shouldn't be also renamed? --ŠJů (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support I agree with the rename. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It was discussed briefly at Category talk:2011 Sendai earthquake#Rename. Is the worldwide English name for this the "Tōhoku earthquake" rather than then "Sendai earthquake"? (I'm in the U.S., and I always still hear the name "Sendai", and see Sendai highlighted as the main city on news reports. I don't think I have seen the name "Tōhoku" at all in American news reports.) Also, if this covers the aftershocks also (or even if not), would something like "2011 Japanese earthquakes" and/or "2011 earthquake damage in Japan" be more appropriate and more obvious to everyone? (If there happens to be another big earthquake in Japan the next 8 months, this could be renamed.) --Closeapple (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support "Sendai" represents only a very small area. In contrast, "Tōhoku" includes much of the affected area.
- From the perspective of Japan, "2011 Great East Japan Earthquake" I think it is more appropriate. However, the official name of this earthquake is "2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake", so the "2011 Tōhoku earthquake" I think it can also.
- Also should rename:
- --Vantey (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support the renaming of all related categories. Arsonal (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Already moved for most of them. Processing Category:2011 Sendai earthquake relief right now. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
What is the encyclopedic value of this category? I cannot see any advantage to create categories according automobile types by city - there is really no use for this 80.187.107.24 19:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
No consensus: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete as it could be something else than the ship Nautica built 2000. -- Docu at 05:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. For now, it redirects to the only one. If it can be referred to something else, make a disambiguation category. If there are multiple targets, why would you delete it so it points to zero targets? Wknight94 talk 12:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Already deleted: Empty category. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
|
I can't find any reason for this category to have been moved from Category:Disney Magic. The parenthetical is extraneous and far too wordy. --Powers (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- In the case where there is more then one Disney ship with the name Magic, I recommend renaming the files here to Disney Magic (1998) similiar to the structure shown here: Category:USS Wasp. Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Moot point, since there isn't more than one such ship. Powers (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the format Ship Name (ship, date) is redundant. I think the standard format should be Ship Name (Date) or Ship Name (Class). Whatever it is, we should follow a standard format for ships and this category should follow that format. Presently, there seems to be a mixture for ship name categories. Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why? What does "Disney Magic (1998)" tell you that "Disney Magic" doesn't? You still know what ship the category shows. Powers (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- When viewed in isolation, I agree that "Disney Magic (1998)" does not provide anything that "Disney Magic" already provides. However, I made the recommendation for the two categories mentioned above because they follow a broader standard category structure & following a common naming convention has merit, as long as it is logical & simple. Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Suffice it to say I disagree. When adding categories, we want it to be as natural as possible for users. Powers (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the format Ship Name (ship, date) is redundant. I think the standard format should be Ship Name (Date) or Ship Name (Class). Whatever it is, we should follow a standard format for ships and this category should follow that format. Presently, there seems to be a mixture for ship name categories. Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Now I see Category:Disney Wonder has been moved, too? While this discussion was ongoing? Both moves are completely and totally unnecessary. Powers (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- A wider discussion about this topic is on Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:Ships by name --Stunteltje (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Move both: There is disagreement on whether the year should be included, but it seems silly to declare "no consensus" and keep the status quo when it is clearly the last choice of both participants, so I'll arbitrarily designate "no year" as the style to use. Feel free to take it back to CfD if you care about the year. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Empty cat; redundant to Category:Sound recording. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 16:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Overly specific; redundant to either Category:Sound recording or Category:Pronunciation, which contains many other pronunciations of Wiktionary terms. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I only created this to get the recording out of the main Category:Women category. I could really care less if it was deleting. My only concern is that these recording will end up back in Category:Women which is a "main category".--ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. But Category:Female voices recordings should be better, ihmo--Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's a de-facto duplicate of Category:Audio files about the female voice, I'm murging the content. Orrlingtalk 02:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Already moved to Category:Audio files displaying the female voice. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Largely unused, redundant to Category:Sound recording :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Merge to "sound..." NVO (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- On a broader level, the whole Category:Audio needs attention. I mean, what's the point of changing one "audio" of a hundred? NVO (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Merge: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Recording studios :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Incorrect suggestions. "Records" are a subset of "recorded media" (Category:Audio storage media) mass produced for sale. Probably you meant "record labels"? They produce "records" but aren't equivalent either. NVO (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Clearly not the same thing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete the empty category or else redirect it to Category:Mechanical threads. Wizard191 (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Already deleted: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete the empty category because it is unlikely to ever be populated. Wizard191 (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
But there are now some categories in it --A.Ceta (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- I removed two of them because there aren't any threads in the the art. The other cat is empty. Wizard191 (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep This category was only empty because Wizard191 emptied it. Now it again contains two categories of sculptures that show threads in art. If sounding anyhow confusing the category could be renamed in Screw threads in art. Emptying, however, is certainly not the best way to handle it. -- Ies (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see any screw threads in any of those pictures. Another note, I can't read German, so I'm not sure what the categories mean either. Wizard191 (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No longer empty, it appears. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This category poorly encompasses two existing categories: category:threading and category:drilling. The contents should be split into these existing cats and then the unrelated stuff taken out, such as category:center punches and category:go/no go gauges. Wizard191 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
No consensus: Please open a new CfD if you wish. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Should be renamed to Category:Jewish Legion in World War I instead (note the I) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Renamed: Next time, for uncontroversial orthographic changes, please submit them directly to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
|
A swift search does not reveal any authoritative definition of a "Medici Collection". Please add a description defining the subject with relevant sources, or delete category. --Urbourbo (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe have a try here: http://uniroma.academia.edu/FabianaLanna/Papers/320011/La_collezione_Medici-Lorena_di_Firenze_-_Alcuni_studi_e_ricerche_preliminari_-_Introduzione
- This is the collection on which at least FOUR museums in Firenze (Pitti, Uffizi, Bargello, Palazzo Vecchio) are based... --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, unfortunately, I don't speak Italian, but please do enlighten us with a definition on the category page - or, even better, with an article en:Medici Collection. Best, /Urbourbo (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
No consensus: Stale request. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Only one Army National Guard. Should be renamed to Army National Guard. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Army National Guard" in an international context could mean anything. Keep consistency with parent categories Category:United States National Guard and Category:United States Army
. --Foroa (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Those categories are consistent with articles on Wikipedia but on WP Army National Guard solely refers to the U.S. Army National Guard. There isn't even a disambiguation note at the top of the page. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Those categories are consistent with the en:wiki en:Category:United States Army National Guard, their parent categories on Commons and on en:wiki and comply with Commons naming rules; it avoids confusion with that various national guards as shown in en:National Guard. --Foroa (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Those categories are consistent with articles on Wikipedia but on WP Army National Guard solely refers to the U.S. Army National Guard. There isn't even a disambiguation note at the top of the page. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
No consensus: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
category:Sankt Johann (bei Mayen) is the same village GFreihalter 09:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't remember why I didn't notice the existing category, but the English name is preferable. The parentheses do not belong to the official name of the municipality and should therefore not be in German. English is the standard language of the Commons categories.--Leit 15:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- The usual way to disambiguate would be by superordinate political division. In this case, as there is more than one Sankt Johann in Rhineland-Palatinate, I suggest a merge of both categories into Category:Sankt Johann (Mayen-Koblenz). --rimshottalk 09:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
No consensus: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Highly subjective category name with a probably derogatory meaning. The only common thing among these streets is that they have proezd (проезд = passage, driveway) in their original Russian name, rather than more common "street". Shmitovsky and Kolomensky are important arterial roads (example: an 8-lane artery is not a "back road" even when it's quite far from city center 55°39′49″N 37°38′1″E / 55.66361°N 37.63361°E). Tretyakovsky is an upper-class shopping arcade. Novoluzhnetsky, Yelokhovsky are upscale midtown streets. Delete and move content back to category:Streets and squares of Moscow.
This case really is about proliferation of various non-English words meaning the same (in this case, "street"), but with an added awkward translation into English. There's a whole bunch of Russian names for street, but there shouldn't be a bunch of parallel categories. NVO 12:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- p.s. this selection, imo, better qualifies for "back roads" (well, alleys, driveways, dark passages you name it). NVO 13:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- delete and move per NVO proposal. --Kaganer 17:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- agree, all of them are streets anyway and often 'proezd' is arbitruary title for otherwise regular street. Shuvaev (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete and upmerge to Category:Streets and squares of Moscow. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused category. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's part of the categories made when we did the first geograph batch. Nuke it if it's no longer needed. It's probably worth to sort water pumping stations by type instead. -- Docu at 09:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Used, correct, useful. --ŠJů (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept.: In use. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused category. Should be placed into Category:Water pumping stations in the United Kingdom. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Used, correct, useful. --ŠJů (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In use. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused category. Should be placed into Category:Water pumping stations in the United Kingdom. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Used, correct, useful. --ŠJů (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In use. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused category. Should be placed into Category:Water pumping stations in the United Kingdom. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Used, correct, useful. --ŠJů (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept.: In use. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused category :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. A real village and correct description. Prospective and useful category. --ŠJů (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In use. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Highly ambiguous. I moved all battery chargers out, there could be Dodge Chargers, San Diego Chargers etc. Is there a need for a separate category for "charger = dish, platter?" ~ NVO (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support rename to "Charger plates". howcheng {chat} 00:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support, suggestion to rename to "Charger plates" sounds logical to me. FieldMarine (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support, though I'd pefer something like "Chargers (plates)". Ingolfson (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support, I'd prefer "Chargers (tableware)" because Category:Plates is also very confusing. It contains Category:Plates in bordures (see heraldry), Category:Labret (see lip plate). --Bohème (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Rename: Going with "Charger plates," the most popular option. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Ivan Bilibin died 1942, so how can these be public domain? Prince Kassad (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- {{PD-RusEmpire}}. NVO (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, for some postcards this template applies. But there are others like File:Ivan Bilibin 131.jpg which were published after 1917, so this template doesn't apply. They have an erroneous PD-France claim - were they first published in Russia? If so, {{PD-Russia-2008}} may apply. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: As long as some of the postcards are OK, this category will not be deleted. Please list any images that should be deleted at COM:DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Guys, would you please fix double categorization. Category:Osa (Rubiaceae) is a plant, Category:Osa is a town. p.s. Incredible flowers! ~ NVO (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Already done: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This was a marked with a requested move to Category:Moated castles. Due to the number of subcategories following the same naming and the need for a clearer consensus, I'm changing it to a full discussion. You can see the comments so far at Category talk:Water castles. --– Adrignola talk 23:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think, only few the moated castles can be called "water castles". A water castle is a narrower concept, I would say. --ŠJů (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Is the term "moated castle" identical with cs:Vodní hrad, da:Vandborg, de:Wasserburg (Gebäude), fr:Wasserburg, nds-nl:Waterburcht, ru:Замок на воде, sk:Vodný hrad? --ŠJů (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- In en:Moat (there is no entry for moated castle): A moat is a deep, broad ditch, either dry or filled with water, that surrounds a castle, building or town, historically to provide it with a preliminary line of defence. In some places moats evolved into more extensive water defences, including natural or artificial lakes, dams and sluices. So I would say that water castles are a broader and more international concept than moated castles. --Foroa (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Leo has moated castle as English translation of de:Wasserschloss (Gebäude) which redirects to de:Wasserburg (Gebäude). --Bjs (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I know, in the Czech terminology, "vodní hrad" (water castle) or "vodní tvrz" (water fort) are terms commonly used for buildings in plain terrain, alluvial plain, valley etc. Summit- or plateau- castles have often also (water) moats but are not called "vodní hrad". --ŠJů 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Leo has moated castle as English translation of de:Wasserschloss (Gebäude) which redirects to de:Wasserburg (Gebäude). --Bjs (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- In en:Moat (there is no entry for moated castle): A moat is a deep, broad ditch, either dry or filled with water, that surrounds a castle, building or town, historically to provide it with a preliminary line of defence. In some places moats evolved into more extensive water defences, including natural or artificial lakes, dams and sluices. So I would say that water castles are a broader and more international concept than moated castles. --Foroa (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
It was proposed to move this category to Category:Miniature railways for the following reason by User:ŠJů: "Miniature railways don't make some specific transport system. They often haven't a transport purpose as primary." See discussion so far at Category talk:Miniature rail transport. – Adrignola talk 23:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support move, per talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support move, of course. --ŠJů (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Miniature railways. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Category:Birds endemic to Australia and others
[edit]Redundant. Piping does the same task without a superfluous metacategory. Scheme is also entirely unworkable, not restricting taxa to endemism in general will result in:
- "[taxon] of [region/country]" categories with 1000s of subcategories (neotropical avifauna will go critical first, then some arthropods or fish I presume), and
- "[taxon]" categories that are in 100s of geographical categories (supertramp species).
Unnecessary creation of metacategories and introduction of new and untested metacategory schemes is also in violation of COM:CAT (see here). See Category:Birds of the Caribbean or Category:Animals of New Zealand for a more parsimonious way to handle all this, and also see here.
A similar approach has been tried before (first half of 2009) and aborted, because it proved to be completely dysfunctional and messy to the extreme. No cleanup was ever conducted. The result is that we are stuck with mess like in Category:Mammals of Spain (subcats), Category:Birds of Pakistan (pages) and Category:Cervus elaphus (supercats) and Category:Silene acaulis (supercats).
If the approach proposed here is to be tried out, it is better to try it with mammals, because birds had a 80% working system, which is now disrupted due to this unsolicited recategorization. Mammals need overhaul anyway, and the system attempted here would be the least invasive way to do that, whereas in birds it is most invasive. Eg "Mammals of Spain" and "Cervus elaphus" anticipate the system intended here quite closely. --Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Categories with "Birds endemic to Xyzland" seem find to me and this category structure is clear and easy to follow. The previous system was too complicated and editors adding bird categories would not know what cat to use. The previous system (which was added with out discussion) had to have an explanation on every page, which tends to suggest that it was too complicated and not consistent with the usual use of categories here. The previous system was so difficult to use that I do not understand the claim above that it was 80% working. I would say that it was not working at all for the majority of users and editors. This meta-category system is far easier to understand and than a difficult to apply and non-standard piping system. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- "The previous system (which was added with out discussion) had to have an explanation on every page" - WRONG. I added the discussion because I thought it would be nice to have it spelled out. But the system is the one we have been using for years. I only cleaned it up, added some top-level categories for otherwise uncategorized content. Since Commons started, there have been several attempts to establish a system for geocategorization like the one you propose, but they have all been rejected for being unworkable (for the reasons given above, i.e. overcrowded categories and overcategorized content).
- As regards "without discussion", you need to understand how Wikimedia works: we are free to experiment until things become controversial, but we must never expand experimentatiuon to a point where it cannot be easily reverted. And it is all the more telling that you create metacategories en masse without need, even though there has been a discussion the result of which is that the metacategory scheme has not been accepted yet. Yet you try to enforce it as if it were policy. This is a very serious violation of Commons policy. Users are asked to exercise restraint with metacategories, not to apply them indiscriminately, yet you (and a few others) try to enforce them with no regard to what you are actually categorizing, creating a hell of a mess in the process.
- As regards "not working", it is certainly working for those editors who (unlike you) have an understanding of biogeography, and who will (unlike you) maintain the categories. One look at the Wikimedia article tells you immediately where a taxon category belongs in the endemism-based scheme. Your category work has caused several complaints on COM:TOL already. You habitually fail to geocategorize the content you upload and then want to force a dysfunctional geocategorization scheme on Commons? Is this supposed to be a joke? If so, nobody's laughing. On the contrary; a lot of veteran editors are not at all happy. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The nominating user has directed categories of the style "Category:Birds of Africa by country" here to which non of the arguments above apply. These are good categories in a style useful on commons. The nominator has lumped a lot of files with different styles here, which is not justifiable. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- There are many pages nominated with this discussion (effectively a deletion request) and many have been inadequately notified. Many of the deletion discussions have been marked as a minor edit; see this edit this edit and this edit as a few examples. Snowmanradio (talk)
- As far as I am aware the nominator has not informed the creators of the categories about the discussion he has started here, which appears to be against the clearly set out guidelines. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- You have been told that your indiscriminate creation of meta-categories violates Commons policy - more so because we have an ongoing discussion not only on metacategories but on the COM:TOL geocategorization scheme - and have been asked to stop it. If you had restrained yourself to trying your scheme with a particular taxon (mammals for example, as per above), categorized thoroughly, and checked whether it works, nobody would have complained.
- Instead of doing so, you have been uncooperative, disruptive and threatening; you have spammed Commons with redundant categories in violation of categorization policy, and then left those categories unmaintained, and you even had the cheek to threaten me when I complained. I have not notified you because your edits are clearly not in good faith. After half a year, you still fail to properly categorize your uploads. Improve your behavior, then you are in a position to complain about technicalities. I refuse to be blamed, because your errors are so many that it is inevitable that one lapses occasionally in correcting them.
- Do you even have an idea how much workload you force upon other editors? If others would judge your work by the standards you set, you would have been banned from Commons years ago. You constantly apply higher standards to others' work than you apply to your own, and this does not sit well with other editors.
- Apart from that, it is remarkable that once again, your complaints miss the point entirely. I have shown several examples which clearly demonstrate the unviability of your approach, and you choose to nitpick about things that are not at all the issue here; the issue rather being your unilateralism that is affecting a considerable part of COM:TOL by now. This is not a project where you can win anything by putting quantity over quality as you consistently do. One look on your Talk page shows that you even habitually upload non-free content! It is obvious that you have not understood what Commons (or Wikimedia for that matter) is and how it works. So who are you to complain and threaten other editors for cleaning up the mess you leave in your wake?
- Take for example Category:Nature of Germany by city. This is OK, because the first level of subcategories of "Nature of Germany" is by-state, and the cities are dispersed among these. So to have a bulk category of all the cities, irrespective of state, is helpful. But Category:Nature of Germany by state is redundant - more so because some of these states consist of a single city - and simply requires two clicks where there need be only one to reach the target category; this should be handled by piping (that you consider piping unusual just serves to show once more that you are completely unaware of Commons' categorization system. Piping has been the default method to arrange categories snce Commons' inception).
- In brief: almost all your category work violates COM:CAT#Creating a new category #1: "[B]e sure there isn't an existing category that will serve the purpose." If a category is too full, you can disperse its contents as you see fit. But until then, you are not allowed to create redundant subcategories. This is a rule; stick to it or quit Commons. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am not happy with your reply. I have asked for an administrator's observations on your comment; see User talk:MGA73. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This is not a topic that I know much about. I came here by request. Perhaps a note on Commons:Disputes noticeboard would be a good idea to get some more users to have a look?
- As for the comment "If a category is too full, you can disperse its contents as you see fit. But until then, you are not allowed to create redundant subcategories. This is a rule; stick to it or quit Commons." I agree that we should not have redundant subcategories but I do not think we have a rule that says that we need to have more than xx files in a category before it is allowed to create a subcategory. Subcategories can be created to make it easier to link to the relevant files, to make sorting easier or to "invite" users to upload more files to that category. --MGA73 (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- True, but in this case one significant problem is that we need to restrict the subcategories in "[Taxon] of [region/country]" to endemic species anyway - otherwise, the categories would simply be too full. So "Birds endemic to South America" is completely redundant, if we do not want "Birds of South America" to have about 3000 (no typo!) subcategories. And the rule is: if there is a fitting category already, any subsequent categories created for the same type of content need to be deleted (or should not be created in the first place). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No consensus for a change. --JuTa 03:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
There are many subcategories of this category with an odd naming convention. Categories like Category:Images from US Navy, location PRETORIA, South Africa would make better sense and eliminate extraneous verbage in the name with names like Category:United States Navy in Pretoria, South Africa. There is no need to note the fact that they are images or that they are from the US Navy. Better to indicate what is depicted: the United States Navy in whatever location. --– Adrignola talk 02:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- The photos often show vessels and people of other countries, and a good portion depict the USMC. I think "Images from US Navy" is more appropriate than "US Navy in". It is also in line with categories from other image sources, e.g. Category:Images from the German Federal Archive, Category:Images from FEMA etc. Benchill (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- These are images by the U.S. Navy, but sometimes not images of the U.S. Navy presence in that location. In addition to covering the U.S. Marines (which are officially part of the Navy but mostly unaccompanied by mainline Navy personnel), images often cover other branches of the military, people and culture in other places, and sometimes celebrities or government officials. The categories are pretty well standardized, although sometimes there are slight variations that can be solved with {{Category redirect}}. If the location categories were to be changed at all, they should be more like "Category:United States Navy images [in/at/of/from] City, Country" or maybe "Category:United States Navy images , City, Country". Keep in mind that some of them may only be near a spot, not actually inside the town name shown — it is difficult to tell which are "in" a town and which are "near" a town. --Closeapple (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- These sub-categories were bot created from categorisation scheme used at the source of the images, hence the wierd nomenclature and sometimes eccentric capitalisation. The category Category:United States Navy images by location was mainly intended as a holding category for categories which were not connected to main category scheme (see blurb and discussion page), the intention was to delete/hide the categories once the images had been properly categorised, which seems to be taking for ever. The result of this discussion would be to make permanent categories whose primary utility was to avoid the bot upload of uncategorised images. "United States Navy images" was intended to mean images created by the United States Navy, not images of the United States Navy. From what I could make out the locations given, are of the units or stations assigned to/at specific locales that generated the images more then of the locale itself.--KTo288 (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, temporary categories that help finding a good topic category. In some cases there is however a problem, some country location categories are cluttered with Navy files showing soldiers painting schools or building houses. For those files - and others too - it make sense to keep topic categories of the United States Navy in foreign countries to 1) keep the file topically related to the Navy and their activities 2) disburden the location (country, cities) categories from a Navy files bias with very little information about the location. The "images" in the name of the category is useless, this is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia, of course it images or other media files. For the source, per Closeapple: Category:Files created by the United States Navy with known IDs is the equivalent to other source categories. --Martin H. (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would agree with Martin H. as I think the creation of these categories obscures their theme, purpose or mission that these images relate to, e.g. Category:Images from US Navy, location Sana'a, Yemen which in turn is part of an empty category Category:United States Navy images from Yemen. I sure that Benchill means well, but stopping other contributors from adding additonal categories that better describe these groups of photographs is not the best way foward[1].
- Since these images are already tagged with IS-USMil Navy template, threre really is no need for these very vague and sometimes empty catogories, I would suggest that Benchill find someother means to map suitable categories that are more specific to their subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm all for adding additonal categories that better describe these photographs, where appropriate. Adding Counter-terrorism in that case isn't appropriate because it only applies to some of the photos, but not the others (Fallon's diplomatic mission). As I said in the edit summary adding Counter-terrorism to the individual photos that do actually relate to Counter-terrorism is a better approach. If you don't object Gavin Collins then I'll remove Counter-terrorism once again. Benchill (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think if you read Admiral Fallons statement about nature of the US Navy's mission to Yemen (see www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dod.gov%2Fdodgc%2Folc%2Fdocs%2FtestFallon070503.pdf&ei=HiJvTqOLOoi2hQfgzaStCQ&usg=AFQjCNE_PMG0IYHJw_DDxdQETxtb-OAhTg pages 20-21) in 2007 when these pictures where taken, you will see that its mission was counter-terrorism, and I think this is evidence that it is appropriate to state the images are related to counter-terrorism, at least there is no doubt in my mind.
- This aside, the intial criticism made by Adrignola of the Category:Images from US Navy, location Sana'a, Yemen, is valid: There is no need to note the fact that they are "images" or that they are from the "US Navy", nor they are somewhere near to the city of "Sana'a", as there are, already in existence, categories for each of these. I propose these categories ("Images from the US Navy, location....") be deleted where ever they occur. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm all for adding additonal categories that better describe these photographs, where appropriate. Adding Counter-terrorism in that case isn't appropriate because it only applies to some of the photos, but not the others (Fallon's diplomatic mission). As I said in the edit summary adding Counter-terrorism to the individual photos that do actually relate to Counter-terrorism is a better approach. If you don't object Gavin Collins then I'll remove Counter-terrorism once again. Benchill (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, temporary categories that help finding a good topic category. In some cases there is however a problem, some country location categories are cluttered with Navy files showing soldiers painting schools or building houses. For those files - and others too - it make sense to keep topic categories of the United States Navy in foreign countries to 1) keep the file topically related to the Navy and their activities 2) disburden the location (country, cities) categories from a Navy files bias with very little information about the location. The "images" in the name of the category is useless, this is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia, of course it images or other media files. For the source, per Closeapple: Category:Files created by the United States Navy with known IDs is the equivalent to other source categories. --Martin H. (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- These sub-categories were bot created from categorisation scheme used at the source of the images, hence the wierd nomenclature and sometimes eccentric capitalisation. The category Category:United States Navy images by location was mainly intended as a holding category for categories which were not connected to main category scheme (see blurb and discussion page), the intention was to delete/hide the categories once the images had been properly categorised, which seems to be taking for ever. The result of this discussion would be to make permanent categories whose primary utility was to avoid the bot upload of uncategorised images. "United States Navy images" was intended to mean images created by the United States Navy, not images of the United States Navy. From what I could make out the locations given, are of the units or stations assigned to/at specific locales that generated the images more then of the locale itself.--KTo288 (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)