Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2011/11
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 November 2011
Contains only copyright violations. 84.62.204.7 19:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
That's kind of the point. It's a tool for admins. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems redundant to fully-populated categories already under "..United Kingdom". Should this be deleted or redirected to Category:Rivers of the United Kingdom? Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
130.242.42.56 11:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Not done, no reason given. --rimshottalk 19:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
timbres chinois 2.1.30.131 15:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- “timbres chinois” : what does it mean ? What is the discussion needed ? --Ordifana75 (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Not done, no reason given. --rimshottalk 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no one monument of St. Francis of Assisi in Katowice. Abraham (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, unused, per author request. --rimshottalk 22:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
For consistency with church articles, this should be "Category:St Nicholas, Blakeney" (note, no full stop). Although I can move files at Commons, I can't see how to move a category as a whole. ~ Jimfbleak (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not needed now, won't let me blank, and I can't delete Jimfbleak (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, for naming consistency. --rimshottalk 20:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
the name should be René Le Bègue. The accent is wrong and I have my doubts that he had a female given name. Catfisheye (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. See also your user talk page in de-wp. --Alupus (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Category is now Category:René Le Bègue (Photographer), appropriate to the proposal and old category deleted. -- Ra'ike T C 21:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Renamed : Housing in Hautes-Pyrénées Florent Pécassou (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, misspelling. --rimshottalk 19:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
the painter died in 1942, everything here is not in public domain yet Frédéric (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, looks like I missed four files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Herman Richir. --Martin H. (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Wegens klachten 83.85.104.108 11:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate? --rimshottalk 22:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
closed no meaningful reason given --:bdk: 02:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Category:Marrakech Grashoofd (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as empty, contents are at Category:Marrakech. --rimshottalk 00:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
What are ``crans``? 80.187.102.181 19:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Tadano_cranes, obvious typo. --rimshottalk 23:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Wunderschön! Aber worin besteht der Diskussionsbedarf? --Kürschner (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sehe in der Versionsgeschichte, die Diskussion ist wohl hinfällig?! --Kürschner (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Restored from history:
papercuts by Jo Kuehn Jo Kuehn (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC) --Jo Kuehn (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
wollte eine Untercategorie in paper cut für meine Schnitte so wie Luise Duttendorfer, wollte sie nicht löschen ! LG Jo
--Jo Kuehn (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Alles klar, ich hab das erledigt. Kategorien kann übrigens jeder selbst anlegen. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Closed, please don't just blank discussions, it will confuse everyone involved, in particular those not involved in the beginning :) --rimshottalk 18:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
See Category:Video games Skull33 (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept as a redirect. This has been deleted once already, it would sooner or later be recreated. --rimshottalk 20:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
nominating for deletion: mortibund category with low chance of files Closeapple (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: Normally I don't nominate valid categories for deletion, but I'd say this category is moribund. Parent category Category:Bullfighting in Ecuador was deleted as empty in July 2011. I have searched for various combinations of "bullfight", "toreo", and "corrida" with "Quito", and have found no files. I did the same with "Ecuador". I also did the same on es.wikipedia.org. This category has existed since 2009 but there is no indication that there will be (or even used to be) any files that match on either Commons or the native Wikipedia that would be a source for this category. --Closeapple (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Support I dislike bullfighting so much, in Quito and elsewhere. I created the cat. in Oct. 2009 for at least one image, which 'disappeared' (was deleted?) later... Bullfighting takes place in Quito at least on a few days in the year, see here]. The cat. can easily be reestablished once one or more appropriate images will be uploaded again. --Cayambe (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
"2011s" does not make sense -- it is not a decade. Should this be "Azerbaijan in 2011"? Auntof6 (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete in favour of Category:2011 in Azerbaijan. Looks like a mistaken creation. --rimshottalk 07:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 09:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
to delete, see Category:Hôtel de Saint-Aignan (Paris) GFreihalter (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, now at Category:Hôtel de Saint-Aignan (Paris). --rimshottalk 20:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Empty category. ALE! ¿…? 13:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 21:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
should be deleted as its content was merged into category:Maps of municipalities of Israel~ עין לציון (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 21:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This category should be renamed in "Église Saint-Bruno-les-Chartreux", like the real name of the church. Sammyday (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Croquant (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted on 15. Jan. 2012 by Romaine Category:Église Saint-Bruno des Chartreux ((incorrectly named) duplicate of Category:Bruno of Cologne Church (Lyon)) --GeorgHH • talk 20:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
the correct category is: Category:Hôtel de Tresmes Reinhardhauke (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Redirected t Category:Hôtel de Tresmes on 17. Nov. 2011 by Coyau --GeorgHH • talk 20:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Empty category. 84.62.204.7 19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is a maintenance category, filled by the template {{Screenshot}}. Due to its nature as speedy deletion category, any contents will soon be deleted, so that it appears unused most of the time. As long as the template is not deleted, the category should not be deleted either. --rimshottalk 19:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Created by disruptive user who has been indefinitely blocked from all Wikimedia Projects. Will always be empty because it is not used by anyone else, and is redudant to the established speedy deletion categories. CT Cooper · talk 15:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Which user do you mean? The category was created 7 years ago by a user who is not blocked on Commons and Admin on English Wikipedia. Also, I don't see a specific speedy deletion template as problematic per se. If this is turning into a discussion of the template itself, I think you should nominate it for deletion. --rimshottalk 21:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- This category was created on the 22 October 2011 by Phanuruch8555 (talk · contribs) (edit, history), who has been globally blocked for high levels of crosswiki abuse, though I accept that on its own isn't a reason for deletion. I see now what has happened, with him adding this category to the template following creation (diff). The {{Screenshot}} has for years just put files into Category:Copyright violations, and I think further categories are not needed. I see Phanuruch8555 also created Category:Non-free logo listed for deletion, which appears to not be connected to any template. I think really both sub-categories should be deleted as unnecessary to administrators, particularity given that such sub-categories could grow to a near infinite list of different types of copyright violations. Failing that, they should at least be re-named as use of singular "screenshot" and "logo" isn't correct for a category. CT Cooper · talk 22:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. I don't really have an opinion on the usefulness of the category, or both categories. I do think, however, that the template is useful. --rimshottalk 19:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have nothing against the templates. I stand corrected on Category:Non-free logo listed for deletion however, which is connected to Template:Logo. The logo category can be dealt with via a separate CfD once this one is resolved. CT Cooper · talk 20:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. I don't really have an opinion on the usefulness of the category, or both categories. I do think, however, that the template is useful. --rimshottalk 19:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- This category was created on the 22 October 2011 by Phanuruch8555 (talk · contribs) (edit, history), who has been globally blocked for high levels of crosswiki abuse, though I accept that on its own isn't a reason for deletion. I see now what has happened, with him adding this category to the template following creation (diff). The {{Screenshot}} has for years just put files into Category:Copyright violations, and I think further categories are not needed. I see Phanuruch8555 also created Category:Non-free logo listed for deletion, which appears to not be connected to any template. I think really both sub-categories should be deleted as unnecessary to administrators, particularity given that such sub-categories could grow to a near infinite list of different types of copyright violations. Failing that, they should at least be re-named as use of singular "screenshot" and "logo" isn't correct for a category. CT Cooper · talk 22:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Which user do you mean? The category was created 7 years ago by a user who is not blocked on Commons and Admin on English Wikipedia. Also, I don't see a specific speedy deletion template as problematic per se. If this is turning into a discussion of the template itself, I think you should nominate it for deletion. --rimshottalk 21:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, the category was added to the template without discussion and subsequently removed. --rimshottalk 22:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Bulwar Inflancki in Kraków - the correct name (singular in Polish instead of plural) RaNo (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Bulwar Inflancki in Kraków. --rimshottalk 06:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Move to Category:St. Charles Seminary (Carthagena, Ohio). Categories for historic sites in the area (of which there are many) generally follow the National Register of Historic Places names for the properties, and this place is listed under the name of the seminary, not the elder home. Moreover, such categories have disambiguation in parentheses, not just with commas. Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Category:St. Charles Seminary (Carthagena, Ohio). --rimshottalk 20:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
the correct category is: Category:Hôtel de SoyecourtReinhardhauke (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think the two categories should exist. There are two "Hôtel de Soyecourt" in Paris :
- PA00088741
, in 7th district of Paris, 51 rue de l'université - PA00085840 , in 1st district of Paris, 3 place des Victoires. This is the one described in the already existing cat Category:Hôtel_de_Soyecourt. On mérimée (database of french ministry of culture describing french historical places) it is called "former Hôtel de Soyecourt".
- PA00088741
- Hope this helps. Symac (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'am agree with Symac, there are two hotels de Soyencourt in Paris. I added the category Category:Hôtel de Soyecourt (Pozzo di Borgo) for distinguish the second one in the 7th district of Paris. All files are attached now in the new category, so we can delete this empty one Category:Hôtel de Soyecourt (Paris 7th). --Moonik (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as per discussion. --rimshottalk 21:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I suggest renaming the category (i) according to the original Spanish name Esteros del Iberá or (ii) according to the en.wikipedia article Iberá Wetlands. Leyo 18:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- supporting proposal (i) → «« Man77 »» [de]·[bar] 19:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'd rather go with (ii), but if the appropriate redirects are made I am fine with (i) too. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- I prefer (i), but my main wish is not to wait until the full year is completed… --Leyo 23:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've performed a Google "poll": (i) 1.1 mio hits, (ii) 21,000 hits. So, (i) might be better. --Túrelio (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Esteros del Iberá -FASTILY (TALK) 19:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Empty category. Remainder of category scheme from early days of Commons, before creation and general implementation of decade and year categories for states and major cities. All media that had been in cat moved to more specific year cats. --Infrogmation (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Jim.henderson (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment I think all of the "by period" category should be deleted, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/03/New York City by period. --rimshottalk 17:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 21:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Empty category. Remainder of category scheme from early days of Commons, before creation and general implementation of decade and year categories for states and major cities. Infrogmation (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
--Infrogmation (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- J 1982 (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Support deletion. The same with these:
- Category:Sweden 1050-1389
- Category:Sweden 1521-1654
- Category:Sweden 1611-1718
- Category:Sweden 1719-1772
- Category:Sweden 1772-1809
- Category:Sweden 1808-1914
- Category:Sweden 1914-1945
- Category:Sweden 1945-1989
- Support deletion for NYC groups of decades. No opinion on Sweden historical eras. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I think all of the "NYC by period" categories should be deleted, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/03/New York City by period. It might be a good idea to open a separate discussion the for Sweden categories. --rimshottalk 17:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted the NYC category, feel free to open a separate CFD for Sweden historical areas. --rimshottalk 18:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Should be deleted once it is empty. "Wikimedia officer" is a completely misleading term which should not be used. The handful of actual WMF officers don't need a template category. Rd232 (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 22:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Categories fall like images under the project scope and such extremely fashion related categories are not with in the project scope. Or what comes next? "Nude or partially nude females with a 5 inch penis" or "Nude or partially nude females with a yello computer mouse in front of a green wall"??? 79.221.105.245 11:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- ia gree with deletion. In main category "Category:Nude or partially nude females" such type of subcategories are multipling!Ciaurlec (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Category:Nude or partially nude females has several such subcategories. The nominator would probably not be happy to find these pictures in Category:Fishnet stockings directly. --Leyo 11:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
All the logos listed here are copyrighted by the clubs they belong to. Fma12 (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Some are probably below COM:TOO. --Leyo 23:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Discussion closed: Though agreeing with the above users that this category may contain copyrighted logos, nonetheless this is not a reason for questioning the category itself, should it be containing free or properly licenced logos. What must be questionned are the single logos contained in it, if they don't match criteria for being freely released according Commons' rules. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Should not be a subcategory of Expulsion of Adam & Eve. Possibly meant to be a subcat of Angels? SiGarb (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- 1/3 of this painting represents 'Expulsion of Adam & Eve', see upper left File:Fra Angelico 069.jpg. All is OK with this cat. --Shakko (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, spot on; you got me there! Although it's hardly 1/3 of the painting; maybe 1/12 at most! Perhaps there could be a note on the subcat page pointing out that detail (which isn't immediately apparent, even on a full-sized image, let alone a thumbnail)? SiGarb (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept, feel free to add a not on the subcat page if you wish. --rimshottalk 23:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Should not be a subcategory of Expulsion of Adam & Eve. Possibly meant to be a subcat of Angels? SiGarb (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- 1/3 of this painting represents 'Expulsion of Adam & Eve', see fragment File:Fra Angelico 096.jpg. All is OK with this cat. --Shakko (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- And OK, you got me there, too! Perhaps there could be a note on the subcat page pointing out that detail? SiGarb (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept, feel free to add a not on the subcat page if you wish. --rimshottalk 23:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Is the entire neighborhood a "Consumer electronics retailer"? If not that category should be moved to relevant sub cats. Kramer Associates (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think, Shop items need not in category of Akihabara. thanks,--Aimaimyi (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Closed, long done. --rimshottalk 07:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Silly category name "topless females featuring armpits". Do females exist on earth without armpits? Is such a category of interest on Commons or follows it a private fetishism of a user here? 80.187.97.160 22:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fits in with the broader scheme of categorizing topless and nude photos, so one doesn't get into a NSFW situation when looking at Category:Female armpits. Evrik (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment no strong opinion one way or another on this one; some users seem to find such categories useful. I'd just encourage Evrick when creating such categories to go ahead and fill out the category tree. I took care of the obvious "Photos of females featuring armpits" for you. Infrogmation (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Since is the category itself in discussion and not its name i renamed it like the others photographs category . The discussion now is in Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/11/Category:Photographs of topless females featuring armpits.
I Hope was not too bold--Pierpao.lo (listening) 03:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:St._Aloysius,_Shandon,_Ohio
Category:St._Francis_de_Sales,_Cincinnati,_Ohio
We only have one image in each of these church categories, and none of them are so impressive that new images are likely to be uploaded, so these categories are superfluous. As well, the names are problematic: church categories always have "Church" or "Chapel" or "Cathedral" or whatever other name, but these categories have just the patron saint and the city. If you didn't know better, you might think from the names alone that they were categories for saints from these places. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The subcategories were created to make for easier browsing in the category "Churches in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati". The likelihood of more photos being uploaded is entirely speculative. Catholic church interiors are often decorated to correspond with the Catholic conception of heaven: with lots of pretty stuff. -Nheyob
- We create categories when images are present: we don't create them in hopes that people will add more images later. Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- If that's the policy, then that's the policy. -Nheyob
- No reason to delete. Makes lists as Category:Churches in Diocese of Columbus easier to read, sort and manage which is not possible with bunches of pictures. --Foroa (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, a category for a single image is inappropriate. Perhaps you don't do things that way, but the rest of us do. Nyttend (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- You are inventing new rules. I can show you hundreds of single image categories, for example in the ships family. Moreover, categories always grow, such as already the last one in your list. --Foroa (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, a category for a single image is inappropriate. Perhaps you don't do things that way, but the rest of us do. Nyttend (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- No reason to delete. Makes lists as Category:Churches in Diocese of Columbus easier to read, sort and manage which is not possible with bunches of pictures. --Foroa (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Closed, empty categories deleted, remaining one kept. --rimshottalk 22:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
See en:Perry Township, Ohio — there are twenty-six Perry Townships in Ohio, so the proper name of this category is "Perry Township, Logan County, Ohio". However, there's just one image in it, and we're not likely to get many more, so this should simply be deleted as being too specific. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Not likely to get more? That's what we thought here in England, then the Geograph project's images were uploaded, and we're suddenly struggling with about 300 images for even the smallest civil parish (that's the equivalent of your townships!). Some of the more picturesque ones have well over a thousand images! You wouldn't believe there are so many people out there taking photographs of nondescript fields, garden gates, road signs, electricity poles, bus stops..... 2.7 million images in total, and most of them hit the system over a period of about three months! And they're still arriving! Anyway, would suggest you keep the category and move as suggested. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I grew up in this area, and I can tell you reliably that there are no other Commons photographers in the area. Your argument is essentially saying that nothing should be deleted for lack of photographs, which is badly at variance with how Commons works. Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- No reason to delete. Most categories start small, Commons is growing with millions of images per year. --Foroa (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Are you going to create a category for every township in Ohio? Every Ohio township is equal, so your argument means that we should have thirteen hundred Ohio township categories. Perhaps this would make sense where you two live, where the population density is greater, but the rural United States is different. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- No reason to delete. Most categories start small, Commons is growing with millions of images per year. --Foroa (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I grew up in this area, and I can tell you reliably that there are no other Commons photographers in the area. Your argument is essentially saying that nothing should be deleted for lack of photographs, which is badly at variance with how Commons works. Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Perry Township, Logan County, Ohio. Should be made into a disambiguation category one there are more categories for Perry Townships in Ohio. --rimshottalk 22:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Not standard English usage: should either be "car insurance" or "automobile insurance". Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- you can change the name if you want. --Chatsam (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Better be generic, such as Insurances of home, vehicles, fire, bicycle, legs of cyclists/models in Italy, breasts of vocalists in the United States, ships on the Black Sea, voices of singers in England, ... --Foroa (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean? "Car's insurance" is simply wrong, and "car insurance" and "automobile insurance" are equal terms for the same thing. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Better be generic, such as Insurances of home, vehicles, fire, bicycle, legs of cyclists/models in Italy, breasts of vocalists in the United States, ships on the Black Sea, voices of singers in England, ... --Foroa (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Changing to Car insurance - name common in both US and UK. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The category "Nude or partially nude women" may have its qualification for Wikimedia but all subcats with the "Nude or partially nude women in ..." or "Nude or partially nude women doing this and that" or "Nude or partially nude women with green hair" are rather silly. In my view they do not follow the self-chosen educational demand of Wikimedia Commons. I recommend somebody to check this fact critically according to the project scope 80.187.97.88 10:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If there's at least one argument to keep those cats, it would be the folowing one : it's a logic of category tree, which prevents over-population of the main cat and allow everyone to find pictures through different paths. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Some people seem to find such categories useful judging by how much effort is put into creating them. The "nude or partially nude" seems to be as an umbrella category for both nude people and non-nude people in partial clothing that some cultures consider "improper" such as toplessness. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If I understand correctly, the subcategories are not to categorize “nude or partially nude women” by “green hair” etc, but to prevent those who came to the “green hair” category for “green hair” from suddenly seeing lots of “nude or partially nude women” (and potentially nominating them for deletion because of that). This category itself is then for what TwoWings described, and to find examples of the categories in it, when you need to create one. --AVRS (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
No one has weighed in on this for several years and there's no consensus to make any changes. Procedural no consensus close. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Not the normal form of disambiguation: this should be "Traveler's Rest (Lolo, Montana)". Note the absence of the apostrophe in the current name. The name is the only issue; I'm not looking to have this category deleted or merged with another one. Nyttend (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
After almost three years of discussion, there seems to be consensus to move the category to "Traveler's Rest (Lolo, Montana)", per User:Nyttend's suggestion. This name also matches Wikipedia's w:Traveler's Rest (Lolo, Montana). --Stefan4 (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
According to en:WP, an artificial lake is a reservoir: see en:Artificial lake. Two categories (Category:Artificial lakes and Category:Reservoirs) are therefore not required as it leads to confusion and pictures of similar objects being randomly separated in 2 categories. I suggest to keep Category:Reservoirs as the main one and transform Category:Artificial lakes into a redirection. Badzil (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- While there have been artificial lakes not built as reservoirs, the current drought of crazy all-powerful emperors (who might order an artificial lake built just to go boating) leaves the categories nearly synonymous. I agree that Reservoirs probably makes the most sense as the main category. --Kramer Associates (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Moved Category:Artificial lakes (and subcategories) to Category:Reservoirs. This discussion can be closed. Badzil (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The Czech terminology use the word "jezero" (an equivalent of the English "lake") for such bodies of water which cannot be simply emptied, contrary to reservoirs or ponds which have any outflow device. Typical artificial lakes are flooded surface mines. River reservoirs hold by dams are usually not considered to be lakes.
I think, it is unhappy that Badzil made massive moves and mixed both types of water bodies together before this discussion was concluded. We can discuss better names for categories or a better category structure but dam reservoirs should not be mixed with (other types of) artificial lakes. --ŠJů (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm quite new to the usage of Commons and therefore did not know that I couldn't close a discussion by myself. This discussion was up for 2 weeks when I made the change and the only contribution agreed with my point of view.
- I am open to discussion and I hope that if the two categories are to stay, an admin can massively revoke my contributions. But I continue to believe that these 2 categories are misleading and while moving and correcting categories, I saw many pictures that were incorrectly categorized. Badzil (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am unhappy with the idea of closing the articifial lakes category myself. Badzil didn't necessarily do something incorrect when he waited two weeks after the proposedl and then acted. But in many of such change proposal cases, there are not enough people seeing such changes being proposed until it "filters down" to their own watched files. That is a problem with the Commons system, not with Badzil's actions or this specific category.
- I move that "Artificial lakes" be retained, as it covers man-made lakes much better that do NOT serve as reservoirs, but for various other purposes. Reservoirs can be linked to it via a "see also" link - because while many reservoirs are artificial, some are also natural lakes to start with, and thus it can't just be a nested category. Ingolfson (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I feel that if we want to get rid of artificial lakes, it should be redirected to lakes, not reservoirs. An artificial lake is always a lake, but only occacionally a reservoir, at least the ones I know. --Foroa (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I move that "Artificial lakes" be retained, as it covers man-made lakes much better that do NOT serve as reservoirs, but for various other purposes. Reservoirs can be linked to it via a "see also" link - because while many reservoirs are artificial, some are also natural lakes to start with, and thus it can't just be a nested category. Ingolfson (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's simply not true that all artificial lakes are reservoirs, even if many are. This is a clear super-cat / sub-cat relationship. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The reason why this discussion failed is that many categories were finally deleted but only one category was previously marked with Cfd template. The only user which received link to the discussion was a moving bot, real users of the discussed categories received nothing.
I agree that many country subcategories of artificial lakes really were only duplicates of reservoir category. It is not amiss to merge them and subsequently again divide. However, for example the Czech category of artificial lakes (thanks to Mircea) was strictly different from the Czech category of reservoirs. If English language hasn't an exact equivalent of the Czech term "jezero", we should look for some indirect expression for artificial lakes which are not a dam reservoir (maybe, "excavated lakes"?). I think, dam reservoirs and excavated lakes are the main two types of artificial lakes. Do you think, some other type does exist? Oh, surely, an artificially filled natural hollow can be the third basic type. The fourth one can be vats (open cisterns, artificial basins) – sometime used as Firefighting reservoirs. --ŠJů (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Description of my actions.
[edit]FYI, here are the categories and files I moved from Artificial lakes to Reservoirs (or subcategories):
- Austria
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Category:Acumulation lake near Drinovci (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Bosnia and Herzegovina; added Category:Reservoirs in Bosnia and Herzegovina)
- Category:Buško lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Bosnia and Herzegovina; added Category:Reservoirs in Bosnia and Herzegovina)
- Category:Lake in Grahovčići (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Bosnia and Herzegovina; added Category:Reservoirs in Bosnia and Herzegovina)
- Bulgaria
- File:Artificial lake kazanlak.jpg (− 4 categories; +Category:Kazanlak; ±Category:Reservoirs→Category:Reservoirs in Bulgaria)
- Chile
- File:Laguna Parque O'Higgins.jpg (+Category:Artificial lakes of parks; ±Category:Reservoirs→Category:Reservoirs in Chile)
- Croatia
- Category:Bajer (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Croatia; added Category:Reservoirs in Croatia)
- Category:Jarun (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Croatia; added Category:Reservoirs in Croatia)
- Category:Javorica Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Croatia; added Category:Reservoirs in Croatia)
- Czech Republic
- Category:Benedikt Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
- Category:Chabařovické jezero (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
- Category:Chomoutovské jezero (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
- Category:Dobříň sand mine (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
- Category:Hromnické jezírko (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
- Category:Lhota (jezero) (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
- Category:Matylda Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
- Category:Most Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
- Category:Žernosecké jezero (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
- File:Darkovské moře.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic to Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
- File:Malý Písečák, od jihovýchodu.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic to Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
- File:Malý Písečák.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic to Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
- File:Velký Písečák, ostrov.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic to Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
- File:Velký Písečák.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic to Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
- Europe
- France
- Category:Lac Daumesnil (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
- Category:Lac Inférieur du Bois de Boulogne (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
- Category:Lac de Lavaud (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
- Category:Lac de Pierre-Percée (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
- Category:Lac de la Lande (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
- Category:Lac de la Plaine (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
- Category:Lac des Minimes (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
- Category:Lac du Mas Chaban (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
- Category:Lac du Mont-Cenis (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
- File:Artix lac 001.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in France to Category:Reservoirs in France)
- File:Bussy-Saint-Georges église Notre-Dame du Val (1).jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in France to Category:Reservoirs in France)
- File:Chamboux, 29 Juillet 2009.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in France to Category:Reservoirs in France)
- File:Chateaucastanet.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in France to Category:Reservoirs in France)
- File:VosgesSaulxuresSurMoselotteLac.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in France to Category:Reservoirs in France)
- Germany
- Category:Eginger See (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Germany; added Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- Category:Northeimer Seenplatte (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Germany; added Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- Category:Tankumsee (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Germany; added Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- Category:Trinkwassertalsperre Frauenau (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Germany)
- Category:Vilstalsee (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Germany)
- Category:Werdersee (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Germany; added Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- File:Baggersee Rheininsel Ketsch.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- File:Brome Ohresee.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- File:Echinger Stausee.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- File:Epplesee.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- File:Erlauzwieseler See.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- File:Finsterrot Muehlsee 20101013.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- File:Finsterroter See Panorama 20101018.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- File:Ketscher Rheininsel Baggersee April.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- File:Luftaufnahme Therme Bad Wörishofen.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- File:PeitingGumpenMarch2011.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- File:Sea of Rohrhof.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- File:Stausee Obermaubach.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- File:Steinbruchsee.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
- Hungary
- Category:Kőszeg-Lukácsháza víztározó (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Hungary; added Category:Reservoirs in Hungary)
- Category:Lakes of Délegyháza (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Hungary; added Category:Reservoirs in Hungary)
- Category:Lázbérci víztároló (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Hungary; added Category:Reservoirs in Hungary)
- Italy
- Category:EUR Laghetto (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Italy; added Category:Reservoirs in Italy)
- Category:Lago Casere (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Italy; added Category:Reservoirs in Italy)
- Category:Lago Marcio (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Italy; added Category:Reservoirs in Italy)
- File:Bozen 1 (216).JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Italy to Category:Reservoirs in Italy)
- File:Lago alento.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Italy to Category:Reservoirs in Italy)
- File:Medicina - Giardini Area Pasi.jpg (+Category:Artificial lakes of parks; ±Category:Reservoirs→Category:Reservoirs in Italy)
- Liberia
- New Zealand
- Category:Cosseys Dam (removed Category:Artificial lakes in New Zealand)
- Category:Lake Benmore (removed Category:Artificial lakes in New Zealand; added Category:Reservoirs in New Zealand)
- Category:Lake Ohakuri (removed Category:Artificial lakes in New Zealand; added Category:Reservoirs in New Zealand)
- File:Harbour Bridge from Chelsea.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in New Zealand to Category:Reservoirs in New Zealand)
- File:Mount Wellington behind Stonefields quarry redevelopment.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in New Zealand to Category:Reservoirs in New Zealand)
- File:Stonefields Development Still Very Raw III.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in New Zealand to Category:Reservoirs in New Zealand)
- Portugal
- File:Braga-Bom Jesus(lago).jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
- File:Parque cidade póvoa lago.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
- File:Parque da Cidade Lago.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
- File:Parque da Paz em Almada (Lago).jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
- File:Parque da Ponte - Lago.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
- File:Parque do Bom Jesus (lago 2).JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
- File:Parque do Bom Jesus (lago 3).JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
- File:Parque do Bom Jesus (lago 6).JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
- File:Parque do Bom Jesus (lago).JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
- File:Pq d carlos i lago 1.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
- File:Quinta Pedagogica Braga (3).jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
- File:Quinta Pedagogica de Braga (12).jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
- Serbia
- South Korea
- File:Artificial Korean lake.JPG (+Category:Parks in Seoul; ±Category:Reservoirs→Category:Reservoirs in South Korea)
- Sweden
- United Kingdom
- Category:Virginia Water Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom; added Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)
- File:Badger Dingle - Upper Pool 01.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)
- File:Badger Dingle - Upper Pool 02.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)
- File:Birds in artificial lake, England - scan01.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)
- File:Fishing lake at Bidston Moss-by-Peter-Craine.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)
- File:Lister Park Lake Bradford.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)
- File:Marine Lake under threat-by-Mike-Pennington.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)
File:Model boats and swans-by-Steve--F.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)Moved to Category:Ponds in Merseyside.File:Swans take over model boating lake-by-Raymond-Knapman.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)Moved to Category:Ponds in Merseyside.File:The model boat lake-by-Bob-Abell.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)Moved to Category:Ponds in Merseyside.
- United States
- Category:Berkeley Pit (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the United States; added Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
- Category:Blue Hole (Big Pine Key) (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the United States; added Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
- Category:Detroit Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the United States; added Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
- Category:Lake Lagunita (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the United States; added Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
- Category:Lake Tuendae (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the United States; added Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
- File:Artificial Circular Lake.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United States to Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
- File:CSUSlake.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United States to Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
- File:Fort Belvoir DLA building.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United States to Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
- File:Hagg lake near dam.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United States to Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
- File:Harney Peak dam.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United States to Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
- File:Lookout Point Lake from HWY 58.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United States to Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
- Misc.
- Category:Artificial lakes of parks (removed Category:Artificial lakes; added Category:Reservoirs)
- Category:Gaasperplas (removed Category:Artificial lakes; added Category:Reservoirs)
- Category:Kenyir Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes; added Category:Reservoirs)
- Category:Man-made lakes (removed Category:Artificial lakes; added Category:Reservoirs)
- Category:Polyfytos lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes; added Category:Reservoirs)
- Category:Sukhna Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes; added Category:Reservoirs)
- Category:Zoetermeerse Plas (removed Category:Artificial lakes; added Category:Reservoirs)
- File:Artificial Korean lake.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
- File:Artificial lake kazanlak.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
- File:Bütgenbach Lake drained.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
- File:El Hajeb Lac (Maroc).JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
- File:Hällekis quarry artificial lake.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
- File:Karnak44.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
- File:Lago de San José.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
- File:Laguna Parque O'Higgins.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
- File:Malibou Dam.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
- File:Markiezaatsmeer.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
- File:Medicina - Giardini Area Pasi.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Badzil (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Quick look at the UK ones: File:The model boat lake-by-Bob-Abell.jpg, File:Birds in artificial lake, England - scan01.jpg, File:Badger Dingle - Upper Pool 01.jpg Reservoirs? No. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- The first one is definitely a pond and not a lake (moved). The second one has a dam according to the municipality of St.Helens. The third one too, according to File:Badger Dingle - cascade 01.jpg. Badzil (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- So what's your point? An artificial lake is created by some artificial means: adding pond liners or else damming. Just having been caused by a dam doesn't make them reservoirs either.
- A reservoir has to be a reserve, some storage of water for some future purpose. This could be water power or drinking water, but there has to be some sort of outfall channel with a purpose attached to it. "Lakes for the sake of just being lakes" don't become reservoirs. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm no native English speaker but your description is not in line with the article on reservoirs of the anglophone Wikipedia. See en:Reservoir#Recreation. A recreational purpose is apparently enough of a purpose to make an artificial lake a reservoir. If I'm wrong, then please correct the article. Also the en:WP article on lakes states:
Artificial lake: A lake created by flooding land behind a dam, called an impoundment or reservoir, by deliberate human excavation, or by the flooding of an excavation incident to a mineral-extraction operation such as an open pit mine or quarry. Some of the world's largest lakes are reservoirs like Hirakud Dam in India.
- This raises the question of the difference between a reservoir and an artificial lake. Everything seems to show that there is no difference, and if there is, it is not clear enough for users from many linguistic backgrounds to choose the right category. Badzil (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- WP is not WP:RS. Yes, most artificial lakes are reservoirs, because they're expensive things to build and so must have been justified for some serious economic purpose. This is no demonstration that all of them are reservoirs. Some are built purely for landscaping purposes, or to make a body of water for recreation. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK. You seem to have a clear idea of what is a reservoir and what is an artificial lake, but it is still unclear to me and other contributors. Would you care to write a description on Category:Artificial lakes and Category:Reservoirs to help people to choose the right category? Badzil (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Some of the artificial lakes I know are made because one needed to excavate material for building long highways or the clay/sand for making bricks, while the resulting lake is nowadays a nature reserve. Others will soon be excavated soon to form some sort of floodplain to cope with the ever increasing problem of floods and high discharge rates of rivers. There too, they will form some sort of lake in a new nature reserve. Many old open mines and quarries have been transformed to lakes too. --Foroa (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK. You seem to have a clear idea of what is a reservoir and what is an artificial lake, but it is still unclear to me and other contributors. Would you care to write a description on Category:Artificial lakes and Category:Reservoirs to help people to choose the right category? Badzil (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- WP is not WP:RS. Yes, most artificial lakes are reservoirs, because they're expensive things to build and so must have been justified for some serious economic purpose. This is no demonstration that all of them are reservoirs. Some are built purely for landscaping purposes, or to make a body of water for recreation. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm no native English speaker but your description is not in line with the article on reservoirs of the anglophone Wikipedia. See en:Reservoir#Recreation. A recreational purpose is apparently enough of a purpose to make an artificial lake a reservoir. If I'm wrong, then please correct the article. Also the en:WP article on lakes states:
Perhaps we should have Category:Artifical water bodies or Category:Man-made water bodies, and then have subcategories under that. A water body could be added to whichever categories matched its primary uses. There are different kinds of artificial water bodies. A "reservoir", in the broadest definition, can be a container for anything. But in practical usage, in my opinion, "reservoir" implies a water reserve that will later flow for some other purpose: hydroelectric, mill power, downstream river water, drinking, etc. (I am from the U.S. Midwest; people in other places may have different opinions of what "reservoir" implies.) There are many kinds of artificial water bodies that could technically be called a "reservoir", depending on context, but usually are described more specifically:
- Many artificial lakes and ponds are created primarily for recreation and serve little other use.
- Man-made detention basins or retention basins, which I think are also called "catchments", "catch basins", or "detention pools", are portions of residental or commercial areas where surface runoff terminates so that it doesn't flood into adjacent land. Some of these are used for recreation; but more often they are simply decorated or put in a low-visibility location.
- Flooded basins in abandoned surface mines. Sometimes they drain and sometimes they don't; their water is usually polluted. (See, for example, Category:Strip mining effects in Monterey, Illinois in May 1973, a recently uploaded set of photos from the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration.)
- Artificial spa structures and outdoor baths.
- Swimming pools.
- Fish hatchery tanks/ponds and other kinds of artificial fish ponds. (Category:Fish ponds)
- All kinds of Category:Garden ponds including Category:Ornamental ponds.
- Cooling ponds, especially common at electric power plants. Some of these cooling ponds are openly connected to the natural water system as well.
Some of these water bodies may have functions that cross over: for example, the famous Lake Mead on the Arizona-Nevada border in the U.S. was created by Hoover Dam; it would probably go in both Category:Artificial lakes and Category:Reservoirs, as it has had both recreational and water management purposes from the beginning. --Closeapple (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Conclusion
Reservoirs will be considered a subset of artificial lakes. Both categories will be kept separate. Renaming categories from Artificial lakes to Reservoirs should be performed with much care as a portion of artificial lakes were not designed to or do not currently serve as reservoirs. --Pitke (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Category:Spadina Avenue, Category:Spadina Avenue, Toronto, Category:Spadina Road, Category:Spadina Road, Toronto
[edit]Spadina Avenue and Spadina Road are two separate roadways. We have a lot of images of Spadina Avenue, and a smaller number of Spadina Road. I thought the two separate roadways merited two separate categories. The roadways are separate historically and numerically, although they are colinear. I started a category for Spadina Road. Recently I discovered it had been deleted. I discovered the images that images I thought belonged in the category for Spadina Road had been placed in a category for Spadina Avenue. Category:Spadina Road was deleted because it was an "empty, implausible redirect", -- Geo Swan (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW, I suspect there are no other Spadina Roads or Spadina Avenues, anywhere but Toronto
-- so the qualifier "Toronto" is unnecessary.see below Geo Swan (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think that the reason for those deletions has been misconstrued. Of course Spadina Avenue and Spadina Road are two different streets. That is a well-known fact among most Torontonians, and I am also not aware of anyone here suggesting otherwise. Category:Spadina Road, Toronto was deleted because it was empty. That's the only reason it was deleted. If there are images that were supposed to be there, they hadn't been there for sometime. Empty categories are deleted (and always without prejudice to their recreation if images pertaining to that subject are later uploaded or later subcategorized). Category:Spadina Road was subsequently deleted because it was a redirect to a deleted category (thus the auto-generated phrase 'empty, implausible redirect') -- Foroa's deletion was merely a clean-up exercise. If you have images of Spadina Road, by all means recreate the category. I'm pretty sure no one has an issue with that.
As for qualifiers, disambiguation on Commons is not always about uniqueness or primary status of the topic. In that respect, usage of disambiguation here is completely different than on Wikipedia. On the Commons, we strive to maintain consistent naming conventions for all subcategories. Consistent category naming ensures helps ensure that images are properly categorized. When one active editor can typically be categorizing dozens of images at any one time, and hundreds (or more) in a week, consistency in category naming is more important than recognizing a subject's uniqueness. In this case, all Toronto street categories are disambiguated so that editors who use those categories know precisely what the category name is, and don't have to guess ("Is Yonge Street unique? What about Wellington Street? Does Elizabeth street need a qualifier?" etc. etc.)--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I did learn something, Geo Swan, from your note on my talk page. I had no idea Spadina Road started at Bloor. I always thought it started at Dupont. Interesting. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I also thought it started north of the escarpment, but when I checked google maps today I too was surprised when I found it started at Bloor. I added some new (to us) city of Toronto images to Category:Spadina Road, Toronto, and restored some former images -- so it has about ten images.
- I did learn something, Geo Swan, from your note on my talk page. I had no idea Spadina Road started at Bloor. I always thought it started at Dupont. Interesting. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think that the reason for those deletions has been misconstrued. Of course Spadina Avenue and Spadina Road are two different streets. That is a well-known fact among most Torontonians, and I am also not aware of anyone here suggesting otherwise. Category:Spadina Road, Toronto was deleted because it was empty. That's the only reason it was deleted. If there are images that were supposed to be there, they hadn't been there for sometime. Empty categories are deleted (and always without prejudice to their recreation if images pertaining to that subject are later uploaded or later subcategorized). Category:Spadina Road was subsequently deleted because it was a redirect to a deleted category (thus the auto-generated phrase 'empty, implausible redirect') -- Foroa's deletion was merely a clean-up exercise. If you have images of Spadina Road, by all means recreate the category. I'm pretty sure no one has an issue with that.
- I didn't simply recreate the category, as that might complicate the restoration of the previous revision history. Geo Swan (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Done by User:Skeezix1000 28 November 2011. --Achim (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
it seems to be a subcategory of Cherubs, when it should, if anything, be a subcategory of Angels, or of Adam & Eve, or Eden. It also contains two Annunciation subcategories, which should not be here either SiGarb (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- cherubs is a subcat of angels, and in this iconography are exactly cherubs, not some unknown angels. Why "or of Adam & Eve, or Eden"? And Adam & Eve, and Eden: 'cos Adam and Eve aren't always in Eden. All is OK with this categories. And two Annunciation subcategories are about Fra Angelico paintings, where in upper left part Expulsion story is depicted. Keep it all as it is. --Shakko (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, I disagree on the placement of this Expulsion subcat; not all these paintings depict cherubim; the Expulsion was carried out by God, as is shown in several of the images, unaccompanied by angels or cherubim. So any pics without angels/cherubs should not be included here. Surely, therefore, the Expulsion should be a subcategory of Eden (and indeed, as you point out, of Adam & Eve), not of angels? Perhaps the category of the remaining pics with angelic figures in should be "Cherubim guarding Eden" or "Cherubic guardians"?
- After (or at the time of?) the expulsion, cherubim were set to guard Eden, as was the flaming sword (which in the original story doesn't seem to be actually carried by any angel, or cherub!). In many of these pictures the artists have conflated several parts of the story. (Strictly, cherubim should have four wings and four faces – those of a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle/griffon vulture – but artists have, understandably, often simplified this iconography too.)
- Cherubs have, of course, long been confused with putti in the popular imagination, and the word "cherubic" now refers to those plump little creatures, whereas if your child looked truly cherubic in the original sense you'd be terrified! The Cherubs subcat rightly excludes putti. But the imagery of angels has likewise become confused; angelic messengers in the Bible generally appear as men, without wings. Yet historically almost all depictions of angels pure and simple (as opposed to Seraphs, Thrones, Dominions etc etc), apart from the very earliest, mistakenly(?) show them with wings, presumably the better to differentiate them from the earthly people in the picture. SiGarb (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think you waist too many energy to this subject. Commons is not text article in language wiki where verbatim accuracy is prefered. Categories at commons works as tags, as keywords - see how it is done in commercial photobanks. It is not possible to categorize everything with absolutely accuracy. Shakko (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed not, but where a category is unhelpfully or inaccurately situated, and could easily be put into a correct or more helpful position, it seems to be worth doing. Or are you now advocating a "well, that's close enough'" attitude? In that case, all those "putti" could be filed under cherubs, and all those cherubs could be simply left as angels (or fairies, or butterflies, or aircraft – they all have wings!) – it's close enough... :o) SiGarb (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think you waist too many energy to this subject. Commons is not text article in language wiki where verbatim accuracy is prefered. Categories at commons works as tags, as keywords - see how it is done in commercial photobanks. It is not possible to categorize everything with absolutely accuracy. Shakko (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I think this category is exactly right, and it's helpful. Nitpicking is not useful, on the other hand. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Cfd template was removed 30 September 2012 by User:Traumrune. Categorisation seems to be ok by now. --Achim (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Closed formally, requested recategorisation already done. --Achim (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Nominated on behalf of User:Flickrworker. Reason given was "sponsored name which changes every time a new sponsor is known (Japan Open Tennis Championships)" FASTILY (TALK) 04:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support: Though official website is http://en.rakutenopen.com/ English wp as well as Japanese say just Japan Open. --Achim (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Japan Open Tennis Championships per nom. --Achim (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
District of... renaming
[edit]Large undiscussed rename of UK geographical categories from Category:Forest of Dean to Category:District of Forest of Dean, and others. See User_talk:Skinsmoke#District_of... for some existing discussion.
This just looks like disambuggeration - in some cases we might usefully need to disambiguate two real entities as categories (maybe "town" and "district of town") and so such a rename makes sense. In most cases though, there was only ever one entity and so no need to disambiguate. The result of applying this new change there is simply to make the real, useful category empty and less prominent, whilst hiding the useful content under an unfamiliar neologism.
There is no need whatsoever for sibling categories to be named according to some identical formula. MediaWiki categorization operates by membership, not by string-matching.
This is a bad change and should be reverted. If it's useful in some cases for real disambiguation, then keep those. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Forest of Dean is not really the best example, because of, well, the Forest of Dean. "District of Forest of Dean" is awkward, but is the formal legal name for the district (so not a neologism, even if completely unfamiliar). That said, I'd prefer the disambiguation to be done after the name, as this makes HotCat and other Commons tools more useable; Forest of Dean District and Forest of Dean (district) - which matches the article on en.wp - are both viable options here.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- In general terms, my views are expressed here.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- We now have Category:Forest of Dean as an empty category. That dumps on our readers in a big way. Is that what we're supposed to do? Wikilawyering over pointless (and in this case, incorrect) subtleties of wiki authoring should never break site usability for unfamiliar readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not disagreeing on that point, I'm just pointing out the end goal for Forest of Dean will probably have some sort of disambiguation.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Disambiguation there should probably be as Category:Forest of Dean (forest), as the historically least important taxon. The Forest is about boundaries, geology and community, far more than it is about trees. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- The topic that the districts named from should usually be at the main title like Epping Forest is and the district disambiguated like Corby, Tendring or Sefton. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Disambiguation there should probably be as Category:Forest of Dean (forest), as the historically least important taxon. The Forest is about boundaries, geology and community, far more than it is about trees. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not disagreeing on that point, I'm just pointing out the end goal for Forest of Dean will probably have some sort of disambiguation.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- We now have Category:Forest of Dean as an empty category. That dumps on our readers in a big way. Is that what we're supposed to do? Wikilawyering over pointless (and in this case, incorrect) subtleties of wiki authoring should never break site usability for unfamiliar readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Weak
Oppose there is probably no need to disambiguate when there is no other topics, the idea of using Borough of... or ... District was as a form of natural disambiguation not so that every district is disambiguated, I do agree people do often refer to them as ... District but I don't think that's a good reason to dab all of them. North Devon possibly should be disambiguated because of the confusion with Torridge but I don't think Cheshire West and Chester should be disambiguated, that is like having County of Cumbria instead of Cumbria or website of Wikipedia when unambiguous. In addition there will be still be some inconsistency where districts don't have separate cats to the settlement like Ipswich (Borough of Ipswich) or Nottingham (City of Nottingham). Also Category:Brighton and Hove wasn't disambiguated yet that is a "city" with no settlement by that name, but the 2 settlements that the name includes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I don't know about the other categories mentioned, but Category:District of Forest of Dean has been redirected to the less awkward Category:Forest of Dean District. Category:Forest of Dean is now a subcategory of "Forests in England" and well populated with images and sub-categories. Are we okay to close, or does this require further discussion? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've given up on contributing to Commons, so I no longer care. FoDD is a recent local government construct, not an established piece of geography. FoD isn't merely a forest (much isn't) it's a COMMONNAME for a well-recognised regional area. Neither of these are influences on the crazy world of Commons naming. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Forest of Dean is at the main title while Category:Forest of Dean District contains the district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've given up on contributing to Commons, so I no longer care. FoDD is a recent local government construct, not an established piece of geography. FoD isn't merely a forest (much isn't) it's a COMMONNAME for a well-recognised regional area. Neither of these are influences on the crazy world of Commons naming. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I don't know about the other categories mentioned, but Category:District of Forest of Dean has been redirected to the less awkward Category:Forest of Dean District. Category:Forest of Dean is now a subcategory of "Forests in England" and well populated with images and sub-categories. Are we okay to close, or does this require further discussion? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
No consensus to change structure. The only alternative I can see would be turning Category:Forest of Dean into a disambiguation page, with separate disambiguated categories for the region and the forest. If someone wants to propose that in the future, they are welcome to do so. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
See also Category:Nicolas Charles Oudinot Ji-Elle (talk) 08:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Risque de confusion entre ces deux catégories, le père et le fils se prénomment tous deux Nicolas Charles Ji-Elle (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC).
- Solution possible : faire comme sur sl, où les dates sont indiquées après le nom (http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Oudinot). Jospe (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Ji-Elle: Can we follow Jospe's suggestion, and both Category:Nicolas Charles Oudinot and Category:Nicolas Oudinot to a disambiguation category with Category:Nicolas Oudinot (1767-1847) and Category:Nicolas Oudinot (1791-1863), then sort the images accordingly? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Seeing no opposition, I've created the disambig pages and the new categories as described above. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
See en:The Lawn — proper capitalisation is Category:Academical Village, not "Academical village". Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- The Kraken agrees: Looks like most respectable sources capitalize the two words. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Need disambiguation, there are hundreds of "Academic Villagess" over the world. --Foroa (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- As per Ibn Battuta and Foroa, move to Category:Academical Village (University of Virginia). This would also match with Category:Lawn (University of Virginia). Does that sound okay, Nyttend? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just saw this discussion, so just for completeness' sake: No, the Lawn is just one part of the Academical Village as designed by Thomas Jefferson... and strictly speaking, the buildings at the lower end of the Lawn aren't even part of the (old) Academical Village. So I'm glad the two categories remain separate... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sure. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Academical Village (University of Virginia). --Achim (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Because there are a lot of locks in a parallel canal for the river, like the Meuse, the Lek, The Rhine. Creating a separate category for river locks generates separate categories for locks in other countries and it is almost impossible to see we are talking about rivers or canals. It makes categorising very, very difficult. Stunteltje (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think the whole category-section is overall a mess regarding locks in the Netherlands or maybe even worldwide. It should be renamed to something like "Locks in waterways (in the Netherlands)", because especially in the Netherlands, with it's large watersections, the Lek is for example not a canal but a river. Canals are manmade waterways, rivers are created by nature. To add to the confusion: some rivers got canalized in the Netherlands (e.g. section of the Rhine)...
By renaming it to waterways, this problem can be overcome. Regards Sonty (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)- Can solve the problem indeed. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Creating a separate category for river locks generates separate categories for locks in other countries"
- No, it doesn't. A meaningless consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. If this category is useful for the Netherlands, then create it. If it is not useful for other countries, then don't create those. MediaWiki categorization is a tree, not a grid. We don't need to populate orthogonal cross-products of every possible combination, if there is no usefulness to some of those possible combinations. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the compliment. One has to find out if a lock is in a river or a canal. In the Netherlands in most rivers the locks are in parallel canals. The rivers have weirs. --Stunteltje (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Not done: Stale since 2011. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
|
Related CfD: Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/08/Category:2012 Summer Olympics athletes by country – the main discussion is taking place here. |
What is the difference between Category:Athletes and Category:Sportspeople? If there is a significant difference, I think it should be clearly articulated on the category pages; if there is not, perhaps a merge would be appropriate. There are many child categories this would apply to as well. --Pete F (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Athletes" would be a subset of "Sportspeople". Sportspeople who are not athletes include coaches, team owners, referees, etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, I see that's how it's handled in English Wikipedia. And it makes sense. I think if that's the reasoning here, it's important to have some text to that effect on the relevant category pages, so that there is some hope that sub-cats like Category:Sportspeople from the United States etc. get handled in a consistent manner. I will work on that, and watch this discussion in case any other important points emerge. -Pete F (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Renaming to Category:Competitors in athletics might be an idea. That's what they did at en:Category:Athletes. Multichill (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Good point. But actually, the en-wp category you point to is specifically for competitors in certain "track & field" sports -- apparently there are two meanings for "athletics," which I never knew. So if we're going to make a similar distinction here, it would probably be better to use Category:Sports competitors or similar. -Pete F (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- If we were to decide that renaming Category:Athletes to Category:Sports competitors as described above (and paralleling English Wikipedia), is there a technical means to implement this? A bot or toolserver tool perhaps? -Pete F (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Peteforsyth, Auntof6, Multichill: It seems the separation of sub-categories of Category:Athletes and Category:Sports competitors is more or less done, though some individual files could still probably be sorted. Are we good to close, or should we entertain Multichill's suggestion of moving Category:Athletes to Category:Competitors in athletics or Category:Athletics competitors ? I also notice we don't have a Category:Athletics people for non-competing people like coaches, judges, etc, as many sports do. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- The structure looks good now. I think either of Multichill's suggestions would be clearer: when we say "athlete" in the US, it means any kind of sports competitor. I think the more specific name would mean fewer wrongly categorized things in the future. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think you're probably right. And what do we do with Category:Athletes? Redirect or disambig? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I guess disambig. There are three possible entries I can think of: Category:Athletes ethra (which I just created, although it should probably have a parent category with a name that doesn't include ethra), Category:Sportspeople, and whatever we're calling the one for track and field competitors. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Peteforsyth, Auntof6, Multichill: It seems the separation of sub-categories of Category:Athletes and Category:Sports competitors is more or less done, though some individual files could still probably be sorted. Are we good to close, or should we entertain Multichill's suggestion of moving Category:Athletes to Category:Competitors in athletics or Category:Athletics competitors ? I also notice we don't have a Category:Athletics people for non-competing people like coaches, judges, etc, as many sports do. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so I suggest the movement of all current sub-categories to Category:Athletics competitors (in Category:Sports competitors by sport) and turning Category:Athletes into a dab page with:
- Category:Athletics competitors (Athletes narrowly defined, track and field competitors)
- Category:Sports competitors (Athletes broadly defined)
- Category:Athletes (moth) (to be created, as per en:Athletes (moth), containing [[::Category:Athletes ethra]])
- And possibly these too?
- Category:ATHLETE program (lunar rover)
- Category:Athlete (band)
- Themightyquill (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Peteforsyth, Auntof6, and Multichill: Any thoughts on my proposal above? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- It sounds fine to me.--Auntof6 (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Fine with me. Multichill (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- It sounds fine to me.--Auntof6 (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Peteforsyth, Auntof6, and Multichill: Any thoughts on my proposal above? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I've turned Category:Athletes into a disambig page, and moved the content to Category:Athletics competitors but the various sub-categories still need to be renamed. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: per Themightyquill. Category:Athletes converted in a disambiguation page, and categories moved to the new name. NB: Category:Olympic athletes is left untouched, as it depends on the related discusison. –Ruthven (msg) 12:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)