Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2013/07
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 July 2013
Can we please delete this category? It was used to to a problem with a bot, but all files it and Category:AvionX now appear to be at Category:Avion (Pas-de-Calais), so this cat appears to have out lived is use. (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Category:Avion_isn.27t_for_airplanes for more details.) Liamdavies (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree to delete the category:AvionX. I created it only as a "shelter" for the images correctly stored in cat:Avion, now in Category:Avion (Pas-de-Calais). --Createaccount 15:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Has been deleted and is empty. --Passerose (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Empty category. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Has been deleted and is empty. --Passerose (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Track is now called Sonoma Raceway and the category should be Category:Sonoma Raceway --Dough4872 04:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Support reasonable change--Morio (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)- Please provide interlanguage links and/or interwikis on category page to substantiates request. --Foroa (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I moved the images to Category:Sonoma Raceway and also the revision history to Category talk:Sonoma Raceway.--Morio (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Has been deleted and is empty. --Passerose (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
удалить как созданную по ошибке kosun (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Has been deleted and is empty. --Passerose (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The event changed the name during its planning and all pics are in another category. I created this category for planning but didnt use it at all. Kippelboy (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Has been deleted and is empty. --Passerose (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Should be deleted. There are thousands of "Wikivoyage banners of" categories, and it would be silly to have "Wikivoyage banners in" categories of each. This Ohio one appears at the top of results when adding categories and is confusing. JamesA (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Has been deleted and is empty. --Passerose (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Very Pointless This Is Not Your Ordinary Acid3 Fan. (My Talk Page) 18:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Delete unless creator Foroa (talk · contribs) has a good explanation. Appears to just mean "Windows user" in Japanese. (Usually Foroa wouldn't create a category with Japanese characters for a global concept. So maybe it was a misfired copy-paste from something else.) --Closeapple (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- No explanation This Is Not Your Ordinary Acid3 Fan. (My Talk Page) 21:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Has been deleted and is empty. --Passerose (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Wrong name, missed brand name Sigma. Correct category is created, so please delete this one Maksim Sidorov 20:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Has been deleted and is empty. --Passerose (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
delete, wrong category RomanM82 (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Has been deleted and is empty. --Passerose (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete per wrong name, my bad. Liamdavies (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Has been deleted and is empty. --Passerose (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Commons categories typically use "United States" when referring to the country, not an acronym, and Commons categories typically put the subject of the category (embassy) before the modifier (of the United States) (e.g. People from California, Buildings in Chicago, etc., not California people, Chicago buildings, etc.).
Many of the subcategories in Category:Embassies of the United States need to be renamed, therefore, along the lines of "Embassy of the United States in x" (or something like that) in order to be consistent with the above-noted principles as well as the parent category. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support naming consistency is important, we will end-up with several thouaands of embassies. --Foroa (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- More than a month has passed, with no concerns raised. Change implemented, with appropriate redirects to be created by bot. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Categoría vacía y duplicada con otro nombre. Raimundo Pastor (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 22:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Duplicada con otro nombre más correcto: "Category:Train stations in Castile-La Mancha" Raimundo Pastor (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yo tambien creo que la categoría correcta es Category:Train stations in Castile-La Mancha.--JT Curses (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 22:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Done, as copyvios deleted. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted as empty, after contents have been deleted as copyvios. --rimshottalk 22:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment Files can be found with [1] (anything with "Montagu" from August 5, 2013). Book was simultaneously published in UK and US in 1928, so PD-US-expired. --Rosenzweig τ 19:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep - COM:URAA states that "No works published before 1 January 1923 anywhere in the world are in copyright in the US. This is absolute and not changed by the URAA." so it should not be affected. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep AND THAT GOES FOR ALL THE MANY pre-1923 WORKS NOMINATED HERE. WAKE UP DINGLEY! Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've been threatened with a ban for having uploaded these evil copyvios to Commons at all. I've had sets of images already bulk-deleted for being "unclear" and for "user request" (the user requesting this being an en:WP-banned user trolling from Wikipediocracy). I've had Crown Copyright images (pre-1946, i.e. PD in 1996) deleted as COM:URAA. Now if my contributions here are so unwelcome, then just delete the lot.Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep AND THAT GOES FOR ALL THE MANY pre-1923 WORKS NOMINATED HERE. WAKE UP DINGLEY! Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published before 1923. Expired British Crown Copyright shouldn't be deleted; see the footnote in {{PD-UKGov}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept Clear consensus to keep, 1875 < 1923 for URAA. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
There is Category:Street signs in Lviv, so Category:Street signage in Lviv may be delete --Buka (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate. --rimshottalk 22:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The category should be renamed to Category:Photos from DVIDSHUB Flickr photostream, because the photos weren't taken by DVIDSHUB. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Closed - content will be moved. --High Contrast (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Now at Category:Salif Diao Dudek1337 (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious misspelling. --rimshottalk 20:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I just found this category, and as far as I know, it's never had anything in it. I've never heard of buildings being considered "Neo-Federal", but even if I'm wrong, it doesn't appear to be useful, since nobody's been using it. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, it took me a bit, but I've tracked down where this came from. It all starts with this image of a house in Murray Hill, New York City. I do a lot of building images, but I'm not in any way an expert on architectural styles, so I only add style information when an authoritative source gives it. In this case it was the AIA Guide to New York City, which describes the house as "neo-Federal", which, like you, I had never heard before. I thus created Category:Neo-Federal architecture in New York City, and the category structures that are usual for dealing with historicist architectural styles, including this category.
Then, a few days later, I guess I decided that "Colonial revival" and "Neo-Federal" might be near cognates, if not actually the same, so I redirected Category:Neo-Federal architecture in New York City to Category:Colonial Revival architecture in New York, but neglected to fix the other cats or label them for deletion.
My suggestion is to delete this cat and Category:Neo-Federal architecture as well. If it turns out that I come across more descriptions of "Neo-Federal architecture", I can re-create the cats and separate the previous item(s) from the "Colonial revival" cat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Way beyond my knowledge of architecture in the U.S., but Ken's proposed approach seems very reasonable. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Update: I have confirmation now that "Neo-Federal" and "Colonial Revival" are the same thing. The NYCLPC designation report for the Albemarle-Kenmore Terraces Historic District describes many of the buildings as "Neo-Federal" (this term is also apparently used by the NRHP report), but the NYCLPC's Guide to NYC Landmarks, published 31 years later, refers to them as being "Colonial Revival". From this I conclude that the two terms are synonymous, and "Neo-Federal" is simply a term from an earlier time, which has been supplanted by "Colonial Revival". In light of this, I have changed the category under discussion to a redirect to "Colonial Revival architecture in the United States". Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorted. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Could this be renamed to "People associated with specific individuals", or something to that effect, because the current wording suggests that the category includes anyone who works with people (a very broad category of people). Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Reasonable suggestion Dankarl (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Three weeks and no objections. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
categoría innecesaria, creada por un usuario registrado que se hace autopromoción a sí mismo, y copia datos de otras páginas Duque Santiago (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 12:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
All files categorzed here show female inflorescences and not "fruits". Rillke(q?) 09:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- ok I'm going to rename this category, see Category:Humulus lupulus (inflorescence) --anro (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Humulus lupulus (inflorescence). --rimshottalk 06:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
out of project scope - private creations not adding value; user has a history of creating out of scope matters MoiraMoira (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- What's wrong with a USER category? Wolf Lambert (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept as a user category. --rimshottalk 18:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Wrong spelling of the street and waterfront in Copenhagen. All media in it are moved to the already existing Category:Kalvebod Brygge. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 20:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The category is empty. Gce (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Эта категория может быть наполнена в любой момент кем угодно. Данная губерния существовала. --Vizu--
Deleted, empty in July, still empty in October. --rimshottalk 20:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
As per Commons:Language policy which states that categories should be written in English. Lena Goessling is the English translation of her name. Flickrworker (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Lena Goeßling Goessling is the proper name of a German person. We would injured her personal rights if we rename it. --Nati aus Sythen (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty sure we don't injure her rights by following policy and having the cat at her English translation. What a ridiculous comment, would you like to say the same thing to FIFA or the BBC who call her by the English translation of Goessling. Didn't think so. Think before you post and don't try lawyering. Flickrworker (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Of course you can disagree. But of course it would also be nice if you would be objective and polite. Thank you. --Nati aus Sythen (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Would be nice if you had read the policy before commenting and then didn't come out with the ridiculous for an argument. Flickrworker (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Still rude, still vain. You can read my argument above, it is what it is. Proper names should not be translated, should not be messed up, not even with an "Umlaut". Would you rename the category of "Christoph Maria Herbst" with "Christopher Mary Autumn"? Sounds funny, but it's the same problem. --Nati aus Sythen (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Still making yourself look silly I see with "Proper names should not be translated, should not be messed up, not even with an "Umlaut"". Read the policy. Flickrworker (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Still rude, still vain. You can read my argument above, it is what it is. Proper names should not be translated, should not be messed up, not even with an "Umlaut". Would you rename the category of "Christoph Maria Herbst" with "Christopher Mary Autumn"? Sounds funny, but it's the same problem. --Nati aus Sythen (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Would be nice if you had read the policy before commenting and then didn't come out with the ridiculous for an argument. Flickrworker (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Of course you can disagree. But of course it would also be nice if you would be objective and polite. Thank you. --Nati aus Sythen (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty sure we don't injure her rights by following policy and having the cat at her English translation. What a ridiculous comment, would you like to say the same thing to FIFA or the BBC who call her by the English translation of Goessling. Didn't think so. Think before you post and don't try lawyering. Flickrworker (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Discussion closed. As Goeßling is Lena's proper surname, the most we can do is creating a redirect from Lena Goessling to the correct name. Please do not invert redirects or I'll go blocking the page. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
duplicita k Category:Carol Popp de Szathmary Maxx (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll merge it. ghouston (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
'Metro Light Rail' no longer exists in Sydney, it is now known as 'Light Rail', the Wiki page has now moved, and it would make sense to move this whole tree to the more specific name of 'Light rail in Sydney'. The proposed name is both specific (it says what it is and where it is) while not being proprietry, hence it should never need to be moved again. Liamdavies (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support 'Light rail in Sydney' - Gareth (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's been over two weeks, there are no objections and the category creator agrees with the move, so I'm carrying it out. Can a Admin please delete the category and any left in the tree when all files are moved? Liamdavies (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The move is complete, if both Category:Metro Light Rail, Sydney and Category:Metro Light Rail stops could now be deleted it would be appreciated. Liamdavies (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Photographs should have remained in the "Metro Light Rail" (as a sub category) since at the time (when photographed) was branded as such, future photographs (post MRL) should be put in "Light rail in Sydney". Example on how it could've been done is Category:Busabout Wagga Wagga which contains Category:Fearnes Coaches as a sub category. Bidgee (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- By the same logic should Category:Trams in Melbourne be split into many categories for all the different operators? If the category had been named Light rail in Sydney from the start this wouldn't even be in question. Having said that, it might be an idea to put vehicles into a by livery category system as well, that would be easy to do (I'd happily do it) but would really only make sense after a new livery is introduced. Liamdavies (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- To address Bidgee's concerns I have gone through images in the tree and created a new category ( Category:Metro Light Rail signage in Sydney ) with all images that clearly show the MLR logo placed into that category (as well as other categories they were already in). I've noticed that there are a number of images that show trams with SLR instead of the MLR M in the liveries, does this constitute a SLR livery? If so, should I start creating that cat tree now? Either way, the previous cats are still empty, and I request an Admin again to delete them. Liamdavies (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The change has already been made and there haven't been any further objections. ghouston (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
and Category:The Holocaust 1934, Category:The Holocaust 1935, Category:The Holocaust 1936, Category:The Holocaust 1937, Category:The Holocaust 1938
No objections, so the categories will be renamed. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
delete, wrong category RomanM82 (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- What's the correct one? --rimshottalk 12:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Obviously done. --Passerose (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I suggest to delete Category:Konstanzer Richental Chronik. It seems to be a duplicate of Category:Chronicle of the Council of Constance. Passerose (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- The move has been done recently. As nobody objected against deletion since more than 3 months, I will request for speedy deletion now. --Passerose (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done. --Passerose (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Nominate for deletion - contents already relocated to "Category:Train stations in KwaZulu-Natal" André Kritzinger (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 21:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
May be deleted - contents all moved to Category:Train stations in Western Cape André Kritzinger (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 21:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
May be deleted - contents already moved to Category:Train stations in South Africa André Kritzinger (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 21:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Empty, files are in Category:Travel maps of Russia Globe-trotter (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted, empty category, not needed at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC) → closed
Empty, files are in Category:Travel maps of Russia Globe-trotter (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted, not needed at this point. --Ymblanter (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
too small subcategory, maps are all at Category:Travel maps of Belize Globe-trotter (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Files moved to Category:Travel maps of Bali Globe-trotter (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Files moved to Category:Travel maps of Japan Globe-trotter (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - COM:URAA states that "No works published before 1 January 1923 anywhere in the world are in copyright in the US. This is absolute and not changed by the URAA." so it should not be affected. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep AND THAT GOES FOR ALL THE MANY pre-1923 WORKS NOMINATED HERE. WAKE UP DINGLEY! Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've been threatened with a ban for having uploaded these evil copyvios to Commons at all. I've had sets of images already bulk-deleted for being "unclear" and for "user request" (the user requesting this being an en:WP-banned user trolling from Wikipediocracy). I've had Crown Copyright images (pre-1946, i.e. PD in 1996) deleted as COM:URAA. Now if my contributions here are so unwelcome, then just delete the lot.Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep AND THAT GOES FOR ALL THE MANY pre-1923 WORKS NOMINATED HERE. WAKE UP DINGLEY! Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published before 1923. Expired British Crown Copyright shouldn't be deleted; see the footnote in {{PD-UKGov}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept Clear consensus to keep, 1875 < 1923 for URAA. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Por ser la galería indicada para votar la Imágen/Video requerido. Ciluxo (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Not done, automatic translator indicates that this is not a category discussion request and user hasn't edited since July. --rimshottalk 23:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Unclear just what the scope of this category is meant to be; Jawi and Arabic are different scripts, Chinese has no relation to any of the other scripts. Should be deleted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- The aim is to contain photos that demonstrate the Chinese Malay Jawi words as in the photo of the sign inside the category. Beside the fact that Jawi is a subcategory of the multiple scripts that use the Arabic alphabets in its scripts. I hope this would explain the creation of this category.--Ashashyou (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- What, I pray you, is "Chinese Malay Jawi"? Also, considering the only image in this category last I check was a cover from a work by Raja Ali Haji (not Chinese), this scope seems terribly defined.Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK i will remove the photo to the Malay Jawi.--Ashashyou (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It's empty now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty, unclear scope, as per nom. --rimshottalk 22:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Rename request. Since non Arabic is used as an adjective, it should be hyphenated (i.e. the category should be Category:Arabic script in non-Arabic languages). Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK agree.--Ashashyou (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I can not find a move tag as in the normal WIkipedia. Can you help?--Ashashyou (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is the move process for Commons Categories.Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Is there a link to the move process?--Ashashyou (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Moved --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks--Ashashyou (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Arabic script in non-Arabic languages as per nom. --rimshottalk 23:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
duplicita k Category:Adinkerke Military Cemetery ?? Maxx (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not a duplicate, two distinct cemeteries. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Not done, no reply to objection. --rimshottalk 23:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Question What is the copyright status in England? It says that the image comes from a book by w:John Gloag who died in 1981. As John Gloag died less than 70 years ago, anything created by him is still copyrighted in England. On the other hand, if the photos were taken by someone else, and the photographer either is anonymous or died during the year of publication, then the images satisfy {{PD-1996}} (unless the photographer submitted a copyright renewal to the US authorities which seems very unlikely for a book like this). --Stefan4 (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
deleted -FASTILY 11:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
This category can be deleted because a category for this photographer with the name Ron Kroon exists Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Several Ron Kroon do exist, category probably mixed up. Moved to Category:Ron Kroon (photographer). --Foroa (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't get it. I make a directory Ron Kroon and you put everything back and delete the category? Why? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- There are several Ron/Ronald Kroons. --Foroa (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept, Category:Ron Kroon made into a disambiguation. --rimshottalk 22:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
No media in category, as all media related to this subject is being put into 2013 IPC Athletic World Championships as that is it's proper name Flickrworker (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Redirected, --rimshottalk 22:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Other plants isn't an intuitive description for a category name. I'd suggest creating Category:Plants in the greenhouses of the Jardin des Plantes de Paris with subcategories for plant groups (e.g. the already existing Category:Succulent plants in the greenhouses of the Jardin des Plantes de Paris) --Anna reg (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good suggestion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- After creation of the new category this one is a redirekt. I think it can be deleted. Traumrune (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, as no-one is likely to accidentally use this category name. --rimshottalk 22:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The name of the category shout be "2013 World Games sports people" (With space), doesn't? 
Remux - Nunca Olvidaré, que me enamoré de la más hermosa flor. Ĉu mi povas helpi vin iel? 07:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sportspeople is the usual spelling. --rimshottalk 19:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept, no reply to objection. --rimshottalk 21:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Needs to be moved to Julia Goerges as per Commons:Language policy of all categories being written in English. Goerges is the English version of her sirname. Flickrworker (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- The name of the english wikipedia article is en:Julia Görges - Christian75 (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Kept, her name is Julia Görges, in German and English, as per Christian75. --rimshottalk 22:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
my understanding is that usps stamps after jan 1 1978 are copyrighted, thus we will never have theiir imaages here 76.254.37.226 17:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't object to deletion, but not all modern US stamps are copyrightable, for instance those containing out of copyright images of old paintings or issued in those years but based on an old design. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Philafrenzy is correct but I suppose until there are sufficient images to populate the category it could be deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I populated it. There are probably more that could go in when I have time. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Philafrenzy is correct but I suppose until there are sufficient images to populate the category it could be deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept – Last comment was 11 months ago, no consensus to delete. Slambo (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
my understanding is that usps stamps starting jan 1 1978 are copyrighted, so we wont have their images here. notable ones can be uploaded to varoius wikprojects, of course 76.254.37.226 17:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't object to deletion, but not all modern US stamps are copyrightable, for instance those containing out of copyright images of old paintings or issued in those years but based on an old design. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Philafrenzy is correct but I suppose until there are sufficient images to populate the category it could be deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I populated it. There are probably a lot more that could go in when I have time. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Philafrenzy is correct but I suppose until there are sufficient images to populate the category it could be deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept – last comment was 11 months ago, no consensus to delete. Slambo (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Why shouldn't this category be at Category:Bridges over the Tagus or Category:Bridges over the Tagus River? I looked for it, and couldn't find it at the logical name. Geo Swan (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It should be Category:Bridges over the Tagus River. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Discussion dead for more than one year and the correct name in English should include "the" as prefix to "river". Moved to Category:Bridges over the Tagus River. --Stegop (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this category? I propose merging all content into Category:Trams in Berlin. Liamdavies (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- BVG isn't the only tram operator in Berlin. Hence, Category:Trams in Berlin includes images of non-BVG trams. --MB-one (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- So does that mean that it should be a place holder for trams in BVG livery? Because it is failing to do that, there are plenty of images of trams in BVG liveries elsewhere in the Category:Trams in Berlin tree. Would you be looking to do something like this? Liamdavies (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- BVG isn't the only tram operator in Berlin. Hence, Category:Trams in Berlin includes images of non-BVG trams. --MB-one (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This category is not about livery, but operator. --Sebari (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Build in 1970. No FOP in Belgium... M0tty (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- No reason to delete; they will come back again and again and it might contain de minimis images. --Foroa (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Not done, as per Foroa. Feel free to nominate individual files for deletion. --rimshottalk 20:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published in 1911, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published in before 1923, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published before 1923, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published in 1918, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published in 1905, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published in 1917, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published in 1907, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published in 1911, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published in 1918, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published in 1911, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published in 1912, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published around 1919, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published in 1913, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published in 1917, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published around WWI, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published in 1917, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published in 1912, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published in 1904, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per Stefan4. --rimshottalk 20:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Category not needed, there should not be any "superseded" images - all versions of the paintings are equal. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty and no opposition to nomination. --rimshottalk 20:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The name should be disambiguated to something like Category:Alice, South Africa. Underlying lk (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have some difficulty in interpreting what OK means here. Does it mean that it is OK to delete it? Snowmanradio (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete its a weird collection of things from Alice Liddell to Alicehead - a village in Derbyshire Victuallers (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Probably better as a DAB; ie People named Alice, Towns called Alice, and so on. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh sorry for that, but I had already moved most of the contents to Category:Alice, Eastern Cape, South Africa so there's no real need for this category anymore nor for anyone to comment on it. This is really a different kind of category being discussed for which I repurposed the title "Alice" to include anything with the name Alice in it. If you find it inappropriate however we should just delete it as soon as possible, and I can undo my edits. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
emptied Deleted: per consensus --JuTa 17:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Suggesting that the name be changed to Category:1905 in music. All other music-by-year categories use "Music in YEAR", so "Music of YEAR" isn't in line with anything else. However, almost all other "topic by year" categories use "YEAR in TOPIC", not "TOPIC in YEAR". I'm asking that we move the entire music category tree for consistency with the other category trees. I've not tagged other categories because there are hundreds of them, but I've requested that a bot tag all of the others. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose the blanket renaming request as robotagged. "Category:Music of 1905" seems an outlier in non-standard form, but the bot also tagged the in use "Category:Music in 1905 and all of the hundreds of other "Music in [year]" categories. The "Music in [year]" form in wide use (and has been for years), and is more grammatically correct than "[year] in music". Not a problem. There are certainly other exceptions to the "[year] in [topic] you propose, eg "Category:Ford 1939 rather than "1939 in Ford". In both examples and others, this is because plain simple English should be preferred -- not awkward artificial wording in some quest for supposed "consistency". -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would prefer a mass category-redirect creation if this fail. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose the renaming of categories "Music in YYYY" – it's not clear why that category naming scheme is unsuitable or inferior to "YYYY in music"; after all, its parent categories are "Category:Music in the XXth century by year" and "Category:Music by year", and finally "Category:Topics by year", not "Category:Years by topic". Nothing needs to be done with the nominated and empty Category:Music of 1905. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment "Music in [year]" is no more grammatically correct than "[year] in music". Frankly, it can be a problem on the Commons that our year categories follow various different naming protocols (and for the vast majority of them, it has nothing to do with grammar or correct language). Having said that, I agree with Infrogmation and Michael that this is not the appropriate manner for addressing the issue. If a consistent naming convention for year categories were to be proposed on the Commons, it should be done at a high level, taking into account all of our year categories in order to determine what makes the most sense overall. We should not be doing it on a piecemeal basis, especially given that moving the music year categories alone would not solve the problem. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- One non-standard cat deleted; the rest Closed as Kept with consent of nominator [2]. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
IMHO useless category, the ctaegories Category:Shipwrecks in Canada and Category:Shipwrecks in the United States are far better suited. For comparison a Category Ship wrecks in eastern South America does not exist. For the same reasons, Category:Shipwrecks in western North America should also be deleted. Torsch (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree with nomination. "Eastern North America" isn't even a clearly defined concept. Does it include the Great Lakes? Maybe. Does it include all of the Gulf of Mexico (given that Corpus Christi, Texas on the Gulf is at roughly the same lattitude as Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba, one of Canada's western provinces)? Who knows. Category:Shipwrecks in North America would be okay, if someone thinks it necessary (I have never seen the value in categories by continent). Category:Shipwrecks in western North America is similarly of little use. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 22:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't a "primary amide" has two H on the N by definition of primary and if it's N,N-disubstituted (note mis-spelling also), it would be a tertiary amide instead? (See en:IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry#Amines and Amides and en:Amide). It was formerly Category:Tertiary amides and renamed without discussion or comment; I'm proposing it be put back. Also bundling with this:
- Category:N-substitued primary amides would go to Category:Secondary amides.
- Category:Unsubstitued primary amides would be up-merged to Category:Primary amides (where these three nom'ed cats are presently subcats).
For same nomenclature and spelling problems. DMacks (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, no and no. A secondary amide is an amide with two carbonyl groups on the nitrogen. Same principle for the tertiary. This is the IUPAC nomeclature [3]. Rhadamante (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ah great, thanks for checking an authoritative ref. But that's a bunch of textbooks that need to be corrected to match the spec instead of common usage. First general/organic/biochem undergrad on my desk and online MCAT prep-flashcards get it wrong, along with common use in ACS literature:( So we're down to just a spelling error and some wikipedia articles to fix? DMacks (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- I guess so... To be honest, I was also surprised the fist time I saw that, when it was "fixed" 5 years ago on fr: ([4], with the non-questionable reference... But since then I try to correct this mistake propagated everywhere... Rhadamante (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at that ref and [5], are Category:Imides and Category:Secondary amides actually synonymous? DMacks (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nomenclature and traditions are not that clear on this. Certain people consider yes, the two terms are synonyms, and for a while category Category:Secondary amides was a redirection to Category:Imides. Other restrain the name "imide" to cyclic secondary amides. We have finally chosen the second option on fr:, but there is no absolute consensus on this. Rhadamante (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at that ref and [5], are Category:Imides and Category:Secondary amides actually synonymous? DMacks (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- I guess so... To be honest, I was also surprised the fist time I saw that, when it was "fixed" 5 years ago on fr: ([4], with the non-questionable reference... But since then I try to correct this mistake propagated everywhere... Rhadamante (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ah great, thanks for checking an authoritative ref. But that's a bunch of textbooks that need to be corrected to match the spec instead of common usage. First general/organic/biochem undergrad on my desk and online MCAT prep-flashcards get it wrong, along with common use in ACS literature:( So we're down to just a spelling error and some wikipedia articles to fix? DMacks (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is a case where IUPAC nomenclature and common usage differ. Personally, I think we should stick with what most chemists and know and learn. Having worked for ~20 years with chemists from N. America, Europe and Asia I have never encountered anyone who doesn't define primary amide as RCONH2, secondary amide as RCONHR, and tertiary amide as RCONRR. The purpose of Commons is to serve the user and we shouldn't let nomenclature pedantry get in the way of that. With respect to amides, our current method of categorization makes it harder for people to find the images they are looking for. I don't think it is a "mistake" to categorize amides the way that most chemists categorize amides just because IUPAC has a different and unusual way of defining them. Ed (Edgar181) 10:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with this. IUPAC defines the nomenclature, we're not here to judge what we decide to apply or not. Rhadamante (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- But that is not the case at all. It is entirely untrue. We decide all the time which IUPAC rules we will use and which ones we will not. Articles and categories are titled by common names all over Wikipedia and Commons. Why do we have w:en:Cocaine, w:fr:Catégorie:Cocaïne, Cocaine, Category:Cocaine, w:de:Kokain, etc. but no article or category titled methyl (1R,2R,3S,5S)-3-(benzoyloxy)-8-methyl-8-azabicyclo[3.2.1]octan-2-carboxylate? When it suits our needs we routinely ignore IUPAC nomenclature rules and and go with common nomenclature. Why shouldn't we do so in this case? Ed (Edgar181) 13:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- First there is a difference between names, that have synonyms that could be more often employed than the systematic name, and the classification of function that should be unique, and rule by IUPAC. Secondly, I'm not even sure "(1R,2R,3S,5S)-3-(benzoyloxy)-8-methyl-8-azabicyclo[3.2.1]octan-2-carboxylate" is the IUPAC name for cocaine. It's for sure the systematic name, but IUAPC sometimes also decides to use more common terms to design some very famous chemical substance, for example acetic acid, which is IUAPC name, vs etahnoic acid, the systematic name. Rhadamante (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- But that is not the case at all. It is entirely untrue. We decide all the time which IUPAC rules we will use and which ones we will not. Articles and categories are titled by common names all over Wikipedia and Commons. Why do we have w:en:Cocaine, w:fr:Catégorie:Cocaïne, Cocaine, Category:Cocaine, w:de:Kokain, etc. but no article or category titled methyl (1R,2R,3S,5S)-3-(benzoyloxy)-8-methyl-8-azabicyclo[3.2.1]octan-2-carboxylate? When it suits our needs we routinely ignore IUPAC nomenclature rules and and go with common nomenclature. Why shouldn't we do so in this case? Ed (Edgar181) 13:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with this. IUPAC defines the nomenclature, we're not here to judge what we decide to apply or not. Rhadamante (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
More to the point, it's "substituted", not "substitued". DS (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Exact. My mistake. Regardless the current dispute, these categories should be renamed with the correct term, "substituted". Rhadamante (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have placed a request at User:CommonsDelinker/commands to have the bot rename the three categories. Ed (Edgar181) 18:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept, No consensus. Ed (Edgar181) 22:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Expired Crown Copyright. Per {{PD-UKGov}}, we should treat that as {{PD-author}} outside the United Kingdom. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept per above. BMacZero (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
redundant to Category:Gaetano Monti Darklingou (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Note really: there are other people called Gaetano Monti: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaetano_Monti In fact it.wikipedia calls him http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaetano_Matteo_Monti
--User:G.dallorto (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, in en:wp there are three of them:
- * en:Gaetano Monti (c. 1750 - 1824), milanese sculptor
- * en:Gaetano Monti (composer) (c. 1750 – 1816), composer from Naples
- * en:Gaetano Matteo Monti (Ravenna, 1776 – 1847), also called Gaetano Monti or Monti il Ravennate, sculptor
- --Darklingou (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- So I created a new category en:Category:Gaetano Monti (c. 1750-1824) for the first Monti and put the works that are identified as his in it. Is this o.k.? --Darklingou (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems to have been resolved in July 2013. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Published in 1915, so it is in the public domain in the United States. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- WTF does 1923 have to do with this? These are PD-UK. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Files uploaded to Commons are must to be free in the country of origin and in the US. PD-UK takes care of the former, 1923 of the latter. --rimshottalk 20:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- WTF does 1923 have to do with this? These are PD-UK. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Consensus to keep. BMacZero (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
duplicyty Category:Nahal Sorek Maxx (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Merged Category:Soreq River into Category:Nahal Sorek and added a redirect. -- Geagea (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
duplicyty Category:Scandinavian Mountains Maxx (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- The former refers to any mountains in Scandinavia, whereas the Scandinavian Mountains is a particular range of mountains. I've renamed the latter category to Category:Scandinavian Mountains (range) to make that clearer. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Not a duplicate. One category renamed for clarity. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Why is "baroque" not capitalised? Let's have it as "Neo-Baroque churches", and let's capitalise "baroque" in the names of its subcategories too. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - This seems obvious to me. The same goes for Category:Neo-baroque architectural elements and its sub-categories. However, I'd rather not make all the changes manually. Can someone help? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Requested from CommonsDelinker. BMacZero (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Done by CommonsDelinker 12 January 2016. --Achim (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment See also previous discussion at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2010/10/Category:Scans_from_'CJ_Allen,_Steel_Highway',_1928, as well as listings such as Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Morning_rush_from_King's_Cross_(CJ_Allen,_Steel_Highway,_1928).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Electrically-hauled express train in Natal, South Africa (CJ Allen, Steel Highway, 1928).jpg. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per this. Alan (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Should be renamed "Churches in Saint Helena", as it is more productive: There is only one cathedral on the island, and the thus renamed category would include a dozen items, as it stands now. In the future, when there’s enough media iytems to warrant it, "Cathedrals in Saint Helena" could be recreated, as a subcat of "Churches in Saint Helena". -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Or maybe this category could become a subcat of to-be-created "Category:Cathedrals in Saint Helena". That would preserve trhe other parent cats that link this to other cathedrals. -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- As a cathedral is a special type of church, one, which houses the seat of a bishop, I made it to be a subcategory of Category:Churches in Saint Helena. As far as I can see there is only one cathedral on the island, an anglican. I´m not sure if the RCC-church is really a cathedral.
- If no other suggestions show up, I will remove the template within the next two weeks. --Kallewirsch (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like the simplest couse of action is to rename Category:Cathedrals in Saint Helena to Category:Saint Paul’s Cathedral, Saint Helena, and leave all the rest unchanged. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- I support Tuvalkin's suggestion. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like the simplest couse of action is to rename Category:Cathedrals in Saint Helena to Category:Saint Paul’s Cathedral, Saint Helena, and leave all the rest unchanged. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Done. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Saint Paul’s Cathedral, Saint Helena. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Deletion_policy#MUST_change_to_accommodate_Creative_Commons.E2.80.99_trademarks.2C_which_are_licensed_subject_to_the_Trademark_Policy.21 Elvey (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep After moving all (excl. one protected) SVGs to their sub-category the rest of this zoo consists of less than 100 images, mostly raster versions of the SVGs. More clean-up would help. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
No consensus to do anything, no discussion for years, closed as meh. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
To avoid confusion, it should be renamed to Category:Military rank insignia of the Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) Flor!an (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, --F l a n k e r (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
No opposition in 2 and a half years. Redirecting. If someone wants to create a disambig instead, they are welcome to do so. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Since the EU applies restrictions on use and modification of images of bank notes (see ECB/2003/4 and ECB/2003/5) it makes there hosting here incompatible with the scope of the project which requires that files are free for reuse for any purpose. LGA talkedits 05:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Added the entire content of Category:Euro banknotes to this discussion. De728631 (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep. We have several currency license tags, including PD licenses, with restrictions by counterfeiting laws, e.g. {{PD-USGov-money}}, {{South Korean currency}}, {{Money-IL}}, or {{Latvian banknote}}. Not to mention a whole category filled with restriction tags. And I have a question to the nominator: Why did you only nominate this single sub-category and not just the entire content of Category:Euro banknotes? De728631 (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- The restrictions go further than counterfeiting laws; for example it is not permitted to do anything that "adversely affecting the standing of euro banknotes.". LGA talkedits 20:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- South Korea has similar restrictions. Have a look at the disclaimer in {{South Korean currency}}. Or see {{Coat of arms}}: "Most of the time, the usage of coats of arms is governed by legal restrictions, independent of the status of the depiction shown here. A coat of arms represents its owner. Though it can be freely represented, it cannot be appropriated, or used in such a way as to create a confusion with or a prejudice to its owner." {{Nazi symbol}} points at the fact that swastikas may not be freely used under certain jurisdictions. Nevertheless have we been hosting such images for years. De728631 (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is different to a coat of arms, if the copyright owner of a coat of arms put a restriction on its use as part of its licence, we would not host it here. The restrictions of use of Nazi symbols has nothing to do with copyright licencing it is a matter of jurisdictional law. In this case the copyright owner is saying "you can freely use these images but wait only if you don't harm the reputation of the EURO", that is a subjective view and is a restriction in the licence making it not in line with CC-BY-SA . LGA talkedits 23:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- The only file in this category using CC-by-SA is File:New 5 Euro.jpg, all others are licensed under the custom license for Euro banknotes. De728631 (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- My whole point is that the restrictions the EU put on the license is a restrictions on the creation of derivative works and thus not a commons compatible licence. LGA talkedits
- The only file in this category using CC-by-SA is File:New 5 Euro.jpg, all others are licensed under the custom license for Euro banknotes. De728631 (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is different to a coat of arms, if the copyright owner of a coat of arms put a restriction on its use as part of its licence, we would not host it here. The restrictions of use of Nazi symbols has nothing to do with copyright licencing it is a matter of jurisdictional law. In this case the copyright owner is saying "you can freely use these images but wait only if you don't harm the reputation of the EURO", that is a subjective view and is a restriction in the licence making it not in line with CC-BY-SA . LGA talkedits 23:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- South Korea has similar restrictions. Have a look at the disclaimer in {{South Korean currency}}. Or see {{Coat of arms}}: "Most of the time, the usage of coats of arms is governed by legal restrictions, independent of the status of the depiction shown here. A coat of arms represents its owner. Though it can be freely represented, it cannot be appropriated, or used in such a way as to create a confusion with or a prejudice to its owner." {{Nazi symbol}} points at the fact that swastikas may not be freely used under certain jurisdictions. Nevertheless have we been hosting such images for years. De728631 (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- The restrictions go further than counterfeiting laws; for example it is not permitted to do anything that "adversely affecting the standing of euro banknotes.". LGA talkedits 20:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The EU documents only mention unaltered copies (except for resizing). Derivative works should therefore be assumed to be prohibited. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Stefan4, De728631, LGA: I'm not sure what the situation was when this discussion took place in 2013, but most of these bank notes now include {{Money-EU}} which seems to indicate they are acceptable for commons. If you feel this is not the case, I would like to suggest that you propose a mass deletion of unacceptable files rather than proposing a deletion of the category. Once the categories are empty, we can figure out appropriate action for them. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- That template suggests that unaltered copies aren't permitted in some contexts, such as advertisements. A free licence must allow both altered and unaltered use. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think LGA erroneously marked the category for deletion when in fact the idividual files were meant to be tagged. I say close this discussion and keep the category pages. If anyone feels like starting a mass deletion request for the images, please do so and include all other currencies in question like South Korea, USA, Israel, Latvia, etc. De728631 (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Addendum: Before starting a mass deletion request for images of banknotes, first of all one might want to change Commons:Currency which explicitely allows for anti-counterfeiting restrictions when it comes to derivatives. De728631 (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Stefan4, De728631, LGA: I'm not sure what the situation was when this discussion took place in 2013, but most of these bank notes now include {{Money-EU}} which seems to indicate they are acceptable for commons. If you feel this is not the case, I would like to suggest that you propose a mass deletion of unacceptable files rather than proposing a deletion of the category. Once the categories are empty, we can figure out appropriate action for them. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Stefan2: Thanks for your input, even if I'm not sure about your interpretation (though I'm no lawyer). More importantly though, it seems to me that you'd agree, as De728631 has implied, that if only unaltered copies are potentially problematic, this category itself doesn't need to be deleted, since it does also contain altered copies of the banknotes. Can we close this discussion and leave deletion nominations for individual files? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- A categories for discussion discussion is not an appropriate place for discussing deletion of files, so it's better to close this request. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Closing as keep. Individual files can be nominated for deletion as necessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The real name of the Coliseum is in spanish and it's "Coliseo de Hockey Miguel Calero" / El verdadero nombre del coliseo es "Coliseo de Hockey Miguel Calero" (Hacer comparación con la categoría "Estadio Olímpico Pascual Guerrero") Remux - Nunca Olvidaré, que me enamoré de la más hermosa flor. Ĉu mi povas helpi vin iel? 08:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Category names are supposed to be in English. What is the facility commonly known as in English? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- If this really is the official name, how come there are only two different Google results for "Coliseo de Hockey Miguel Calero"? And who would name a hockey stadium for a football player, anyhow? The World Games Website calls it Inline Hockey Coliseum, which is as much of an official English name as I could find. --rimshottalk 19:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- The coliseum has a short history, actually it was constructed for the World Games, and Miguel Calero was a very important person for the sport in the city and he died few months ago, so the coliseum has that name for honor him. Anyway, make a comparison with the name of the category Estadio Olímpico Pascual Guerrero which is the most important stadium of the city and is just a few blocks away.
- In this article (in Spanish) you can see that was approved baptize the coliseum with the name of Miguel Calero [6] and in this article also says that [7]. --
Remux - Nunca Olvidaré, que me enamoré de la más hermosa flor. Ĉu mi povas helpi vin iel? 22:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- None of that is really relevant. As per COM:CAT and Commons:Language policy, the name of the category needs to be in English. What is the stadium name in English? Category:Estadio Olímpico Pascual Guerrero is incorrrectly named and should likely be moved. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- In this article (in Spanish) you can see that was approved baptize the coliseum with the name of Miguel Calero [6] and in this article also says that [7]. --
- Consensus for global policy isn't achieved yet. Also, COM:CAT and Commons:Language policy says "Category names should generally be in English [...] However there are exceptions". This proposal says "For subjects of only local relevance, proper names in the original language are used generally."; Has this Coliseum only local relevance? I would say yes. According to that a category like Estadio Olímpico Pascual Guerrero isn't incorrectly named and shouldn’t be moved. I think Hockey Coliseum is too general name, if we'll take a English name it must be "Miguel Calero Hockey Coliseum" or similar. --Sahaquiel - Hast du eine Frage?
21:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Sahaquiel9102. This is the proper name for a subject with only (or at least, primarily) local relevance. So I propose a move to Category:Coliseo de Hockey Miguel Calero, as suggested by Remux - Themightyquill (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
As per Commons:Language policy which states that all categories should be in English. Novak Djokovic is his name in English. Flickrworker (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Follow up to Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Novak Đoković. --Achim (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
As per Commons:Language policy which states that categories should be at English titles. His name in English is Novak Djokovic Flickrworker (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Follow up to Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Novak Đoković. --Achim (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Invoices should be merged with Bills and Receipts to form one category of "Invoices, bills and receipts" due to the significant overlap in these types of document. For instance many invoices also include a receipt, and a bill is often just another name for an invoice. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've just tagged Category:Bills and receipts with CFD template to see if we can generate more interst in this discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support merge. It's all the same thing. -- OlEnglish (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Invoices, bills and receipts. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Empty category. Delete category and template. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Empty category. Delete category, empty sub-categories and templates. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Empty category. Delete category and template. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Empty category. Delete category and template. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Category is not empty. If someone wants to nominate the files for deletion, they are welcome to do so. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Closing as keep, as per above. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Empty category. Delete category, empty sub-category and template. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Category is not empty. If someone wants to nominate the files for deletion, they are welcome to do so. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
--- Closing as keep, as per above. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Move to separate deletion discussions I suspect that this is a collection of images from other sources. Anonymous British photos published before 1926 and photos by photographers who died before 1926 are typically fine in the United States. Some of the photos predate 1926. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Category is not empty. If someone wants to nominate files for deletion, they are welcome to do so. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Closing as keep, as per above. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Category is not empty. If someone wants to nominate the contained files for deletion, they are welcome to do so. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Closing as keep, as per above. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Category is not empty. If someone wants to nominate the contained files for deletion, they are welcome to do so. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Closing as keep, as per above. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Category is not empty. If someone wants to nominate the contained files for deletion, they are welcome to do so. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Closing as keep, as per above. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Category is not empty. If someone wants to nominate the contained files for deletion, they are welcome to do so. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Closing as keep, as per above. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete category and all contents. British book, so under COM:URAA they have an unclear copyright status and thus they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It seems that the uploader seems to claim that the photographers are anonymous. This means that {{PD-1996}} is satisfied unless the copyright holder has had contact with the US authorities. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Category is not empty. If someone wants to nominate the contained files for deletion, they are welcome to do so. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Closing as keep, as per above. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I suggest this category be renamed to Category:Toronto Transit Commission trolleybuses, to be consistent with the parent cat Category:Toronto Transit Commission buses and because no other agency ever operated trolleybuses in Toronto. Geo Swan (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Even though I was the one who created Category:Toronto Transit Commission buses in 2008, category names should whenever possible follow the subject + modifier format. If moved, it should be to Category:Trolleybuses of the Toronto Transit Commission, with Category:Trolleybuses in Toronto maintained as a redirect. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: "Trolleybuses in ... [city]" is the standard format for that subject area, used for a very large number of Commons categories, as a search of Commons categories shows, and the same format is used for most Wikipedia articles about trolleybus systems (look at this and compare "Trolleybuses in" to "Trolleybuses of" or "Trolley buses of"). That's the main argument, but in addition "Trolleybuses of the Toronto Transit Commission" would not cover (1) loaned trolleybuses that were only demonstrated in Toronto or (2) the TTC-owned Flyer E700 trolleybus that was loaned to the Boston system for a time in the 1970s (and did not cease to be a TTC trolleybus just because it was temporarily away from Toronto). The fact there there are no photos of those two subjects on Commons currently is not relevant, as there may be photos eventually. And anyway, that is only a secondary, supporting argument for opposing this rename. The main argument is that "Trolleybuses in [city]" is the standard format for all categories for photos of trolleybuses by transit system. Steve Morgan (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has come to an end three years ago. No changes.--Gürbetaler (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Do we realy need a cat for peaople for just a singel situation? There are no pics of these persons directly related to that coup. Sanandros (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- There are plenty of cats for people related to a single situation, such as a world war. --Foroa (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- But a World War has a certain duration for me this duration is just too short.--Sanandros (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- This coup marked the change from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one until his own overthrow in February 1979. Many revolutions/evolutions start with a short trigger. (such as Kristallnacht, Pearl Harbour, Hiroshima, war declarations, ...) --Foroa (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- And what has that to do with categorization of commons cats and its media?--Sanandros (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- This coup marked the change from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one until his own overthrow in February 1979. Many revolutions/evolutions start with a short trigger. (such as Kristallnacht, Pearl Harbour, Hiroshima, war declarations, ...) --Foroa (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- But a World War has a certain duration for me this duration is just too short.--Sanandros (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I have no problem with this category. If it's a significant event, and it played a significant role in the careers of those persons categorized here, the I am not sure how the duration of the event is of any relevance. I would, however, change the category name to follow the standard "People associated with [event]" format. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
OK I took all Cats out and replaced them where possible with galleries similar ^to the en wp policy.--Sanandros (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sanandros: The category now contains a single gallery, for Dwight D. Eisenhower. This hardly seems useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- It used to contain at least Churchill.--Sanandros (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm still not convinced that's useful. Perhaps a gallery at People of the 1953 Iranian coup would do the job? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/06/Category:Metropolitan areas of Georgia (U.S. state). Shouldn't this be "National Parks in Alaska"? They are not Alaskan national parks, they are U.S. national parks that are located in Alaska. And I suppose similar comments apply to 20+ other similarly named categories, so if someone wants to broaden this discussion, fine with me. Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I see no reason why National Parks in the US should have Parks with a capital Park. --Foroa (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support, for both this and all the subs in Category:National parks of the United States by state, as per Jmabel, as well it seems that other U.S. park categories by state use "in". I don't think this discussion needs to be broadened, as the change from "of" to "in" is a clean-up exercise in these circumstances. I am indifferent whether "park" or "Park" is used, as I see the arguments on both sides. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'd lost track of this one but... on the capitalization, I don't really care. But it sounds like we can just go do this, and at some point when I have a little time I will. - Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
____
- Closed: We'll use Category:National parks in Alaska and other parallel categories. - Jmabel ! talk 01:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Moves done. - Jmabel ! talk 02:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Possibly an obscure or confusing category for landmarks. Follow on from this user talkpage discussion. --Penyulap ☏ 14:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Penyulap: I don't really see the problem, but it's possible the category tree has changed since July 2013. Is this still an issue, or can we close discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Closing as keep due to stale discussion and unclear nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't imagine a reason this category souldn't be renamed Category:Bridge of the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76). Geo Swan (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
No opposition in nearly three years. Using "the" is consistent with all the peer categories. Moving to Category:Bridge of the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) and deleting original. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Falsche Bezeichnung; Concordantia Discordantium Canonum ist die richtige Bezeichnung. Siehe [8] Enzian44 (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Decretum Gratiani wäre die in der Wissenschaft geläufige Bezeichnung. --Enzian44 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Decretum Gratiani and fixing the spelling of the redirect Category:Concordia Discordantium Canonum, thanks to Enzian44. --Achim (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Uncategorized and improperly named category mixing user categories with topical categorization. ŠJů (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Wagino 20100516: Are these really necessary, or can they safely be deleted? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Should be renamed to Category:Cat files by user Wagino 20100516 and tagged {{User category}}. --Achim (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Cat files by user Wagino 20100516 and tagged {{User category}}, as per Achim55's suggestion. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Only picture in here is of a gold postbox. No images of the man himself. Image should be categorised with Paralympic gold postboxes. No need for this category as it is redundant with no images of him in person Flickrworker (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
No opposition in nearly three years. Deleting. The category can be recreated if more images are uploaded. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Kept aligning with Wikidata entry — billinghurst sDrewth 14:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a category showing a subcategory containing images of gold post box which imo are already covered adequatly by Paralympic Gold postboxes cat Flickrworker (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
No opposition in nearly three years. Deleting. Category can be recreated if more images of Helena Lucas are uploaded. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not deleted, attaching to Wikidata entry — billinghurst sDrewth 14:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Empty category with sub cat to her post box, which imo is already adequately categorised at 2012 Summer Paralympics gold post boxes Flickrworker (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
No opposition in nearly three years. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not deleting. The person has a wikidata entry and should be categorised appropriately. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Images in this category are adequately housed at 2012 Summer Paralympics gold post boxes. Category contains no images of the person Flickrworker (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Category now contains other images. Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
As per Commons:Language policy which states that all categories should be written in English. Therefore it needs to be moved to Novak Djokovic as that is his name in English. Flickrworker (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Weak support — Firstly I don't understand the En wiki different approach to Serbian surnames in transcription, it means cf. Djokovic vs Tipsarević / Ivanovic vs Janković etc, otherwise I don't see any problem to rename this category according to Commons:Language policy.--Kacir (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: No need to change proper names, not required by policy. --Achim (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Since when do we split categories alfabetically? Jcb (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Closing to centralize discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos Y and Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos A. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Since when do we split categories alfabetically? Jcb (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- when having them in one category alphabetically is too large, i suspect is the rationale. such breakdowns are found on WP for large lists.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- @PigeonIP: as the creator of most of these.
- We could use {{TOC}} or similar as in other cases and remove the subcategories. Makes it easier for tools based on category. Besides, currently only the 26 latin letters and the digits are foreseen. What about russian, chinese, farsi texts? Weak undo all the subcats from my side and only because this CfD is a bit overdue. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb, PigeonIP, and Herzi Pinki: This discussion has been merged into Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos Y, so closing and archiving this one. Josh (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Since when do we split categories alfabetically? Jcb (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Closing to centralize discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos Y and Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos A. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Since when do we split categories alfabetically? Jcb (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Closing to centralize discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos Y and Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos A. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Since when do we split categories alfabetically? Jcb (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Closing to centralize discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos Y and Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos A. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Since when do we split categories alfabetically? Jcb (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Closing to centralize discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos Y and Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos A. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Since when do we split categories alfabetically? Jcb (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Closing to centralize discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos Y and Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos A. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Since when do we split categories alfabetically? Jcb (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Closing to centralize discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos Y and Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos A. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Since when do we split categories alfabetically? Jcb (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Closing to centralize discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos Y and Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos A. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Since when do we split categories alfabetically? Jcb (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Closing to centralize discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos Y and Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos A. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Since when do we split categories alfabetically? Jcb (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Closing to centralize discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos Y and Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos A. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Since when do we split categories alfabetically? Jcb (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Closing to centralize discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos Y and Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Text logos A. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I started this category yesterday. Today I saw there was Category:Barges on the river Weser. I thought Category:Barges by river consistently favored the wording I chose -- but it is actually inconsistent. I am not wedded to the wording I chose. Mainly I'd like other's opinions on whether consistency was important. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Your category naming was correct. If the parent category is Category:Weser River, all subcats should then refer to the "Weser River". Wow - that whole category tree is a mess. We need to pick one name and stick to it, and avoid colloquialisms ("Islands in the Weser") as well as category names that are not proper English/are unclear as to what the subject is ("Maps of Weser"). Problems such as this usually arise when categories are created using English words but using the word order of a foreign language. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- For me as a Dutchman Skeezix1000 is correct. Putting the name of the river behind the word 'river' doesn't look strange to me and being a former standardiser the easyest way. For me "Barges on the Rhine river" looks funny and I don't know where to leave out the "river". But indeed, I am no native speaker. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Done: deleted, per nomination, and categories merged. Ruthven (msg) 15:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Should this category be renamed to Category:Bellagio (resort and casino) to be in line with the article on Wikipedia? Mjrmtg (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has since changed the name of its article to en:Bellagio (resort). I think maybe it's safest to leave it where it is rather than worry about keeping up with minor branding changes over time. It's clear what we're talking about, and that's what important. That said, if you want to create a redirect from Category:Bellagio (resort and casino) or Category:Bellagio (resort), I don't imagine anyone would complain. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Not done: per Themightyquill. Ruthven (msg) 15:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Why is the reference to "outside broadcasting vans"? Is there such a thing as an interior broadcasting van? Isn't the term "broadcasting van" sufficient, since the fact that it is a van necessarily implies that it is an off-site broadcast? We have Category:Ice cream vans, even though the ice cream is being served out of the van at outside locations, and we don't add the word "outside" to make it Category:Outdoor ice cream vans. So why are we adding the word here? Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Interestingly, the parent category (Category:Broadcasting vehicles) does not contain the modifier "outside", nor do any of its other subcategories. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I guess this is derived from "vans used for outside broadcasting". It looks like the usual name for the concept. --rimshottalk 20:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- It does appear from the article that "OB van" is a term, but there is nothing in that link to suggest the full term is ever used. On en-wp, the article on this type of vehicle is at Production truck, which could be the better term for the category. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Does "production truck" include radio broadcasting? If so, it really might be a better name. --rimshottalk 06:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- It does appear from the article that "OB van" is a term, but there is nothing in that link to suggest the full term is ever used. On en-wp, the article on this type of vehicle is at Production truck, which could be the better term for the category. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I guess this is derived from "vans used for outside broadcasting". It looks like the usual name for the concept. --rimshottalk 20:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Rimshot: This category seems to be fairly well used with a decent category tree below it and interwiki links. Can we close? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept, as per Themightyquill: the name seems to be correct and useful and after four years of inactivity this discussion should be closed anyhow. --rimshottalk 22:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Now the 2 cats "Category:Modern movement architecture in Cologne" and "Category:Buildings in Cologne by architectural style" both are part of "Category:Architecture of Cologne".
I think, it should better like this: "Category:Modern movement architecture in Cologne" part of "Category:Buildings in Cologne by architectural style" part of "Category:Architecture of Cologne", because modern movement is a kind of architectural style AKor4711 (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I guess the problem lies in whether all images in "architecture" will be buildings. Category:Buildings in Cologne by architectural style was created as a sub-category of Category:Architecture of Cologne, Category:Architecture of North Rhine-Westphalia by style, and Category:Architecture of Germany by style by city. It seems to me that Category:Architecture of Cologne by style is missing from the tree. If that needs needed to be sub-divided by buildings, then so be it. Beyond that, the whole category tree of Category:Modern movement in Germany by state seems silly to me, as it divides up the movement by state, but each state only contains single sub-category containing Category:Modern movement in state X - Themightyquill (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Created Category:Architecture of Cologne by style and removed the "buildings" element from the tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
More productive if renamed "Category:Banking infrastructure in Portugal", to allow for ATMs and other structures other than whole buildings and staffed branch offices. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, see Category:Bank buildings by country and its subcategories and the way they are organized. Tm (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- See also Category:Banks and Category:Banks by country and subcategories. Tm (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- I see you don’t address the concerns expressed, you’re just saying that this should be like it is because it is like it is. But I prefer to be bold. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously what I argued above could/should/will be argued for other countries, too — we just need to start somewhere. As it stands now, ATMs are categorized under the parent category Category:Banks in Portugal, bundled at the same level as things such as bank logos, media showing financial and commercial data, vanity portraits of bankers, etc. — and that, I feel, is suboptimal.
- Alternatively, Category:Banking infrastructure in Portugal could be created as intermediary level under Category:Banks in Portugal, to include Category:Bank buildings in Portugal and the other mentioned infrastructure items, but there’s not enough media items for that currently, causing new intermediate categories to be ghost towns.
- On the other hand, when there is enough media to properly populate intermediate categories, what is currently in Category:Bank buildings by country will have to be split between, at least, what is whole bank HQ ofice buildings, and what is street level branch offices taking a store space in a common street building or mall. That’s why I think this category should be renamed now instead of just nested under a new category with the newly proposed name.
- -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose No need to rename a fairly well-developed category tree by giving it a less applicable name. I am not concerned at all that Category:Bank buildings by country may end up getting subdivided by various types of bank building -- that's the normal process here on the Commons. I have mixed feelings for creating categories such as Category:Banking infrastructure in Portugal as interim categories, but tend to lean against it - I think it just creates an unnecessary level of categorization under category:Banks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- You didn’t address my concern at all: Where to place ATMs (which exist not only in Portugal, I am quite sure, so the question applies to the whole tree you cherish so much). They are infrastucture, but they are not buildings. Care to think again? -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- First, please keep your comments respectful to others. Condescending and sarcastic comments like "care to think again?" and "the whole tree you cherish so much" are neither appropriate nor helpful.
Second, you have edited Category:Automatic teller machines in Portugal in the past, so there appears to be a clear answer to your question. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- More than two years later, I notice I didn’t (even!) reply to Skeezix1000 reply. Concerning the warning, condescension and sarcasm are well deserved in this matter, as, after 4 levels of threading, this user (who is an admin and reputes the matter at hand a «well-developed category tree», and therefore someone who put some thought in the whole issue) is still not getting it:
- When I ask «Where to place ATMs», I don’t mean where (= in which category) to put media items, but where (within the «well-developed category tree») should the mentioned category go — unsatisfied, as I expressed several times in this discussion, to see it wholly separated, as a sibling, from bank buildings, while both are infrastructure and other sibling items are not.
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- How about creating Category:Banking in Portugal as a parent category to match Category:Banking? --ghouston (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- A good idea, but unrelated to the discussion. "Banking in (Country)" is still not detailed enough to categorize "ATMs of (Country)" with, while there is another cat about banking infrastructure and these both are at the same level with non-infrastructure items and cats, as mentioned. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that bank buildings are infrastructure, since Category:Buildings isn't a subcategory of Category:Infrastructure. The description of the latter says "The infrastructure means any kind of built structure not designed for continuous human occupancy" which would exclude buildings. An ATM machine isn't designed for human occupancy, but it doesn't seem like a "built structure" either. --ghouston (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose whether ATMs are infrastructure or not is debatable, but so far Category:Automatic teller machines isn't in any infrastructure category. --ghouston (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- If I was going to add it, I'd put it in Category:Infrastructure by function and then the Portugal ATMs could go in Category:Infrastructure in Portugal as well as Banking in Portugal. It doesn't seem to belong in any of the other infrastructure subgroups, and there doesn't seem to be much else that could go in "banking infrastructure". --ghouston (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose whether ATMs are infrastructure or not is debatable, but so far Category:Automatic teller machines isn't in any infrastructure category. --ghouston (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that bank buildings are infrastructure, since Category:Buildings isn't a subcategory of Category:Infrastructure. The description of the latter says "The infrastructure means any kind of built structure not designed for continuous human occupancy" which would exclude buildings. An ATM machine isn't designed for human occupancy, but it doesn't seem like a "built structure" either. --ghouston (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- A good idea, but unrelated to the discussion. "Banking in (Country)" is still not detailed enough to categorize "ATMs of (Country)" with, while there is another cat about banking infrastructure and these both are at the same level with non-infrastructure items and cats, as mentioned. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- How about creating Category:Banking in Portugal as a parent category to match Category:Banking? --ghouston (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- First, please keep your comments respectful to others. Condescending and sarcastic comments like "care to think again?" and "the whole tree you cherish so much" are neither appropriate nor helpful.
- You didn’t address my concern at all: Where to place ATMs (which exist not only in Portugal, I am quite sure, so the question applies to the whole tree you cherish so much). They are infrastucture, but they are not buildings. Care to think again? -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin, Ghouston, and Skeezix1000: The category structure for ATMs seems well in place at this point, so the question of where to put ATM images seems resolved since this discussion was last commented on. There appears to be no need to rename the category under discussion. Closing and archiving. Josh (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Since when do we split categories alfabetically? Jcb (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have another idea to find one text-logo in a category with about 4000 files? To split the text-logo-category alphabetically was one idea, another is by type of letters (Arabian, Cyrillic, ...) --PigeonIP (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- To find a logo, these cats won't work anyway. The search function may help out. To search alphabetically within a category, we have the CategoryTOC. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- the idea was created in order to get all text logos out of he category:logos, which is overcrowded with more than 10,000 files in it. instead of simply overcrowding category:text logos instead, we started to create sub-cats according to the first letter of the logo. to me this seems useful, however, there may be better ideas.--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I can immagine you didn't know {{CategoryTOC}}, but now it's present, what is the advantage of alphabetical subcategories? Jcb (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- TOC refers to the filename, not to the logo or what the logo refers to. like File:2004 BACK YARD Recordings Logo.jpg for example.
- What is the advantage of overcrowded categories? --PigeonIP (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- When do you call a category overcrowded? They are designed to have a lot of content, e.g. 100.000 is not a problem. Jcb (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- actually it says on the category page (category:logos) that it was crowded and that files should be moved to sub-categorie. so maybe you should rather delete that template if it causes unwanted action?--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Done - Jcb (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- A tag like that usually means that the files should be moved down into more specific categories, but that doesn't mean strange types of categories need to be made. Logos are already categorized by country, subject (Logos associated with...), and other attributes. --Closeapple (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- actually it says on the category page (category:logos) that it was crowded and that files should be moved to sub-categorie. so maybe you should rather delete that template if it causes unwanted action?--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also, TOC actually uses the sort key, which is the filename if no other is given. (Once you start using alphabetic sort keys for files, you get into all kinds of questions about what the sort key should be. One person might decide to give it the name of the company/organization, the other the brand name of the logo itself, etc. The only type of sort key that's widely-accepted on Commons these days is year-month-date on media of famous people/things with a lot of media of that same person/thing, so that they sort chronologically.) --Closeapple (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- it was just an attempt to be helpful. some german wikipedians recently discussed that there are so many completely uncategorized files on commons and have started to categorize these files. while we were doing this, someone came across the very large and unorganized category:logos. actually there are many files in that category that have no other category than the very general "logos". while i agree that the alphabetical approach may be against your customs on commons, i still think it could make sense to create more subcats of the logos-category and move files to more appropriate (i.e. decriptive) categories. one final thought: there are also sucats for logos according to shape - is that really a more relevant attribute than the first letter of the logo? anyway, i will rather continue now to categorize uncategorized files than cleaning up exisiting categories.--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- When do you call a category overcrowded? They are designed to have a lot of content, e.g. 100.000 is not a problem. Jcb (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I can immagine you didn't know {{CategoryTOC}}, but now it's present, what is the advantage of alphabetical subcategories? Jcb (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- the idea was created in order to get all text logos out of he category:logos, which is overcrowded with more than 10,000 files in it. instead of simply overcrowding category:text logos instead, we started to create sub-cats according to the first letter of the logo. to me this seems useful, however, there may be better ideas.--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- To find a logo, these cats won't work anyway. The search function may help out. To search alphabetically within a category, we have the CategoryTOC. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've grouped these categories at Category:Text logos by letter but if it's decided to delete these categories, that base category should also go, along with Category:Text logos 0-9. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep but rename Category:Letter Y in logos (same for the rest of the letters of course) to be more consistent with other letter categories. This is not an alphabetical categorization per se, it pertains specifically to depictions of the letter Y, as seen in logos. Josh (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Jcb: Thoughts on Joshbaumgartner's proposal? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me. The reason of nomination was that somebody started to categorize all these textlogos in subcategories for the first letter of their file name, which is ridiculous of course. Jcb (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I think, Both categories are necessary.
I agree. - rename Category:Letter * in logos --Benzoyl (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me. The reason of nomination was that somebody started to categorize all these textlogos in subcategories for the first letter of their file name, which is ridiculous of course. Jcb (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Jcb: Thoughts on Joshbaumgartner's proposal? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Done merge "Category:Text logos from *" and "Category:Text logos *" into "Category:* in logos". Josh (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This category provides what's essentially an unhelpful parallel to Category:Town halls in the United States. The latter category is meant to include buildings that en:wp calls "seats of local government" for all kinds of municipalities; users don't benefit when we divide the images by the official designation of the kind of municipality whose governments meet in these buildings. It's much easier for reusers and Commons editors if we just put all of them in a single category tree, rather than having a separate tree for villages. This nomination also includes Category:Village halls in New York (and its subcategories in the village halls by county) and Category:Village halls in Wisconsin, but not the other subcategory, since it's for a specific building that happens to be a village hall. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you are proposing to merge the two categories, I support that proposal. However, I would highly recommend including a cat redirect for whichever we empty. I say this because many of the cat redirects get deleted after they are created. I also recommend a description of the category at the header, something like, "This category contains media related to village and town halls for New York". Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- one note - not sure how this proposal scopes on the international level, since some countries may use village halls for purposes other than government. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree I believe its an important to separate Village Halls from Town Halls as Villages themselves are different from towns. Easier for who? Easier for you to see them grouped together? I think users would like to see a distinction between the two types of government buildings especially when there are 43 photos of Village Halls and 102 photos of Town Halls in Wisconsin alone. --Mjrmtg (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Question: Regarding the claim that "[t]he latter category is meant to include buildings that en:wp calls "seats of local government" for all kinds of municipalities." Then why isn't the proposal to merge everything in towns and villages into exactly one category called Category:Seats of local government? Why prefer the name Category:Town halls in the United States over Category:Village halls in the United States? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Question: Regarding the claim that "[t]he latter category is meant to include buildings that en:wp calls "seats of local government" for all kinds of municipalities." This definition--which is only 15 months old--replaces the earlier definition "In the United States, a village hall is the seat of government for villages". This redefinition was made unilaterally and without discussion in this edit. Shouldn't consensus be sought on the definition before the category names are changed? Furthermore Category:Town halls in the United States gives its own definition as "City halls in the United States"--does this mean that Category:Town halls in the United States should be redirected to Category:City halls in the United States? And why stop there? Why not redirect all city, county, town, and village government building categories to Category:Capitols in the United States? Why are towns and villages indistinguishable in your view? Are towns and cities indistinguishable--as the category suggests--as well? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Question: Regarding the claim that "It's much easier for reusers and Commons editors if we just put all of them in a single category tree, rather than having a separate tree for villages (Echoing User:Mjrmtg's questions.) Can you break down "easier"? Easier to categorize initially? When uploading, would a user know to categorize his or her photo of a village hall as a "town hall" when he or she finds no "village hall" category? Or would he or she just dump the village hall photo into the Category:Villages in the United States category? Or does "easier" mean "easier to navigate categories"? If that's the case, then why not redirect Category:Villages in the United States and all of its subcategories recursively into the corresponding subcategories under Category:Towns in the United States? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support I agree that we should have the one category, with appropriate redirects as FieldMarine suggests. The terminology of city, town and village differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (even within a country). With literally millions of images being categorized annually, our category structure on Commons needs to be as straightforward as possible, and should not require an international user to understand the distinctions between villages, towns, etc. in Vermont or New South Wales. Nobody is suggesting that towns and villages are indistinguishable, but the needs of the category structure on Commons are very different than how we would describe or categorize materials on Wikipedia.
At some point, given that the term "town hall" (and similar terms, like city hall, etc.) refers to different things in different places, we probably should give some thought to changing this overall category to Category:Seats of local government (for largely the same reason that the en.wp article was moved to that title). But that's a discussionf for a different day. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree This category came about because of the Political subdivisions of Wisconsin which is a critical article to read for this discussion. This is a perennial discussion that has been brought up ad nauseam by the non-natives of the state who do not understanding the difference. A village is essentially the same as a city - both are incorporated communities. A town is not a community in Wisconsin. It is the government for rural land. So why lump the villages into the rural land? They only make sense in with the cities. So either lump all city/village/town/unincorporated community/census-designated-places into a single category with (currently) 223 images or divide them fully. I see no in between option. The category has gotten too large and I have still more images to upload when I have discretionary time. Royalbroil 03:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Question As an example, how do you propose that the reusers/reader/editors differentiate between an image of the hall for the town of Green Bay versus the city of Green Bay? There literally are hundreds of instances of cities, villages, and towns with the same name in Wisconsin. Royalbroil 04:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: a category description can be used to help clarify any confusion of what the contents are of a category. Perhaps that would elimate this issue being brought up ad nauseam or address the issue brought up in your question. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I doubt many people look at category descriptions when they categorize photos. --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- IMHO, the important part is to make it easier & understandable for users looking for pictures. Editors can always work to ensure good categorization, which will happen over time. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I doubt many people look at category descriptions when they categorize photos. --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: a category description can be used to help clarify any confusion of what the contents are of a category. Perhaps that would elimate this issue being brought up ad nauseam or address the issue brought up in your question. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Royalbroil's comments are exactly the reason why we need one category consistent with the naming of every similar category for other jurisdictions. Every jurisdiction has its own peculiarities. 4,000,000 new files were added to Commons last year, and we are also still working on the categorization of the previous 13,000,000+ files, and the vast majority of categorization of images is done by people who have no familiarity at all with the peculiarities of the nomenclature of various items for each and every jurisdiction. A comment such as "non-natives of the state who do not understand the difference" misses the point. For our category system to be sustainable we need to use the same generic terms across the board and use notations to provide any necessary details about naming in particular jurisdictions. Many people categorizing and/or using the categories in question will not be aware of, and some won't even care, about the local details provided by Royalbroil. All this discussion does is convince me that all such categories should be renamed Category:Seats of local government (following the example of the English Wikipedia) and be done with it, at least at the parent category level. Given the way Commons works, a category system that requires all users to know that the same type of building is called a village hall in Ashwaubenon, a town hall in Kapuskasing and a bagglybotie in East Hogsmeade is not one that works very well. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment With that kind of logic, why don't we call all cities, towns, villages, and census-designated places as populated places and just get rid of the distinctions of administrative divisions? People not caring or not being aware is no reason to lose the distinctnesss of the categories. --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree So based on the above, it appears that the rationale is to give people categorizing images of village halls and town halls one big bucket that they can throw images into without having to google the locality. The assumptions underlying this seem to be:
- There is a large volume of village and town hall images that are uncategorized or incorrectly categorized
- The original uploader won't have encoded village or town in the image filename or description and won't have categorized the image in a village or town category by themselves (requiring some editor unfamiliar with the locale in which the hall is found to categorize it)
- Looking at Category:Town halls in New York and Category:Village halls in New York, neither of these assumptions appear to hold true. There really aren't that many images (for example compare the number to the number of images left in the top-level Category:Buildings in the United States). And the vast majority of those images encode "Town Hall" or "Village Hall" in the name. The one that I see that doesn't encode the municipality in the name (e.g., File:Mount Kisco, New York.jpg) is of a building that has "MOUNT KISCO VILLAGE HALL" prominently displayed on its front gable. (Another example is File:Hilton, New York Community Center.JPG (disclosure: it's my upload) which links to the Wikipedia article about the village and explains "houses the village offices" in its description. Same with File:First National Bank of Brewster.jpg which explains "now Southeast town hall".) -- DanielPenfield (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree Town halls, Village halls, and City Halls should be kept, and are not all the same. I created some for New Jersey that were unjustly removed. Now I see one for Florida that is being threatened with speedy deletion. I can't even find the images that had that category anymore. ----DanTD (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. We should close this discussion with a decision. It seems like we have a enough comment for a consensus. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not yet. We already have generic municipal building categories per each state. We can always add the Town Hall, City Hall, Village Hall, Borough Hall categories to those. ----DanTD (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- There is also a later-started discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:City halls. Looks like they should be discussed in one place. --Closeapple (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Municipal halls in the United States should just hold all of these, let's make it simple. Distinctions between towns and villages are trivial in this context and vary by state. ɱ (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Or perhaps, Category:Civic halls in the United States. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call them trivial. They're still distinguished no matter what. ----DanTD (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Great idea! Create one big dumping ground, then, in a few years, someone will slap {{CatDiffuse}} on it and then categories for distinct city, town, and village halls will reappear and the cycle can begin anew! -- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- We could just do that right off the bat. Have Category:Municipal halls in the United States and then have the more specific ones under that, and they can be diffused at will. (By the way, that's basically what we had before, except without the Category:Municipal halls in the United States at the top.) --Closeapple (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's the best idea yet, let's do it. ɱ (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- So we already have Category:Municipal buildings in the United States that has these subcats, though 'municipal building' can imply a courthouse, fire/police station, or other structures controlled by the municipal government. I'm still somewhat leaning toward just one cat, Category:Municipal halls in the United States. When people look for images of municipal halls, I don't think they often even know or care if their municipality is officially a city, town, village, etc., and it doesn't matter in this case. City halls may typically be bigger than village halls, though areas like California make almost every town, even tiny rural towns, as official cities. ɱ (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's true that the village/city/town distinction have different meanings in each state; but within the state, the distinction is there. If we want them to be subcategorized, we probably really need an overarching term for the United States and states (which maybe we have in Category:Municipal buildings in the United States generally and/or Category:Municipal halls in the United States for municipal headquarters), then subcategories in each state, because of the distinction between urban-function buildings and rural/road-function buildings. For example, in the northeastern U.S., "cities" and "towns" are incorporated municipalities that have government control, and if I remember correctly, "villages" are often of no legal consequence (they're just settlement names). But in the Midwest, "villages" and "cities" are equivalent incorporated municipalities, and a "town" is mostly a rural administration whose building is mostly a highway maintenance depot with a couple of offices attached (though in places that have been overlapped by municipalities, this is no longer the case). --Closeapple (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think that argument further shows why we shouldn't split between town/city/village, and instead all together or perhaps by purpose served. It's interesting you mention the Northeast, because at least in New York, it works almost the opposite way. In New York, cities, towns, and villages all are incorporated with municipal governments (CDPs and hamlets do not and have no unique government). However a town often has far fewer municipal services than a village, and a town's borders aren't nearly as dictated by population unlike villages. For example, Mount Pleasant, New York has rather arbitrary boundaries and few public services as opposed to the six incorporated villages within it. ɱ (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Within Wisconsin, diffusion of the category was done because it is needed. There are 149 town halls, 48 village halls, and 70 city hall images. I've been busy trying to photograph many halls in my travels throughout the state. I agree that the terms villages, cities, and towns have different meanings in different parts of the United States but I don't think it's a problem in this discussion. Royalbroil 04:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think that argument further shows why we shouldn't split between town/city/village, and instead all together or perhaps by purpose served. It's interesting you mention the Northeast, because at least in New York, it works almost the opposite way. In New York, cities, towns, and villages all are incorporated with municipal governments (CDPs and hamlets do not and have no unique government). However a town often has far fewer municipal services than a village, and a town's borders aren't nearly as dictated by population unlike villages. For example, Mount Pleasant, New York has rather arbitrary boundaries and few public services as opposed to the six incorporated villages within it. ɱ (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's true that the village/city/town distinction have different meanings in each state; but within the state, the distinction is there. If we want them to be subcategorized, we probably really need an overarching term for the United States and states (which maybe we have in Category:Municipal buildings in the United States generally and/or Category:Municipal halls in the United States for municipal headquarters), then subcategories in each state, because of the distinction between urban-function buildings and rural/road-function buildings. For example, in the northeastern U.S., "cities" and "towns" are incorporated municipalities that have government control, and if I remember correctly, "villages" are often of no legal consequence (they're just settlement names). But in the Midwest, "villages" and "cities" are equivalent incorporated municipalities, and a "town" is mostly a rural administration whose building is mostly a highway maintenance depot with a couple of offices attached (though in places that have been overlapped by municipalities, this is no longer the case). --Closeapple (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- We could just do that right off the bat. Have Category:Municipal halls in the United States and then have the more specific ones under that, and they can be diffused at will. (By the way, that's basically what we had before, except without the Category:Municipal halls in the United States at the top.) --Closeapple (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment it may be good to post a guide on which states have differentiated municipalities that are called "villages" and which ones are not. For the ones that do, there are subcategories "Villages in XXX state" and so on, and for the ones that don't, redirect to "Cities in XXX State" or "Towns in XXX State". WhisperToMe (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I'd favor merging into "town halls", but I see others find it useful to have separate "village halls" categories. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- And I still oppose merging any of them. It's foolish, dishonest and misleading to categorize seats of government as town halls when that's not what they are. Especially when those seats of government are in major cities. --DanTD (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- This discussion began over six years ago - longest deletion or merge discussion I've ever seen... Seems like a pretty clear 'no consensus' here. Someone find a closer. ɱ (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nyttend, WhisperToMe, Infrogmation, Ɱ, Royalbroil, DanTD, FieldMarine, DanielPenfield, Skeezix1000, Mjrmtg, and Closeapple: Closed (no consensus to make any specific changes; if there is a specific proposal to be made that warrants further discussion, a new CfD can be created for that, but this one is clearly dead.) Josh (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)