Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2014/09
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 September 2014
Duplicate of Category:Maps of Hudson's Bay, files moved over, this needs to go away. Revent (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - I might be mistaken about which should be kept, this might actually be a 'better' name, but they category shouldn't be duplicated. Revent (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- As the Commons category is called Hudson Bay, Category:Maps of Hudson Bay is the only possible option – otherwise, a CFD about Category:Hudson Bay would be required … FDMS 4 14:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Withdrawn after discussion on IRC (and some looking at other places), this is the better name, will move the files back here and redirect the other version to this location. Revent (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn. FDMS 4 14:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
pornografico 105.168.11.157 08:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy close, No change to category, contents. no argument is given as to what needs fixing. as relates to pornography, the Commons is not censored. thats official policy. end of that discussion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedily closed: Nonsense nomination. FDMS 4 12:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
school uniform images show all good images 98.226.164.186 01:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedily closed: Nonsense nomination. FDMS 4 12:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I made this category, but it wasn't specific enough -- there are multiple Kelly Buttes. Pete F (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The category should be disambiguated, then. Which Kelly Buttes are there, beside Category:Kelly Butte, Portland, Oregon? --rimshottalk 07:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Fair point. I just made Category:Kelly Butte, Washington -Pete F (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguated, feel free to add more categories as you find / create them. --rimshottalk 21:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
about:blank Kijand (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedily closed: Nonsense nomination. FDMS 4 12:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
duplicate of Category:Przeworsk train station Therud (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Redirected. In the future, please use the "Move" tab to move categories instead of creating a new one. In fact, you made this category a duplicate, and I'm only redirecting this one because it has a worse name. FDMS 4 12:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
en tant que propriétaire de ce monument, nous demandons à ce que ces photos soient retirées de votre site par le visiteur passé lors de l'ouverture au public cet été 2014 . 2A01:E35:8AAC:CDC0:DCD7:9BE9:2661:C65F 23:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedily closed: All I understand is that this IP wants files to be removed, therefore out of CFD's scope. FDMS 4 01:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The ship's name is "Clan Monroe", with an "o". http://www.plimsollshipdata.org/pdffile.php?name=31b0269.pdf Motacilla (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Clan Monroe (ship, 1918) –moogsi (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
www..googlr 101.222.235.103 16:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- ????? --DenghiùComm (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- ***** Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Not done, no reason for discussion given. --rimshottalk 06:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
How do I know what make my sks rifle is 97.97.226.66 02:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- You could try the reference desk. --rimshottalk 06:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Nothing done, not a category discussion. --rimshottalk 06:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Needs to be deleted - didn't realise Category: Agriculture in Vietnam existed sorry Ballofstring (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Requested speedydeletion. FDMS 4 08:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Warsaw_Metro_line_1 and Category:Warsaw_Metro_line_2. Because of it this category can be removed. Therud (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Disagree No relevant reasons stated. Categories of metro lines cannot replace a category of metro stations. Category of metro station in Warszaw should be a subcategory of Rail transport stations in Warszaw and Rapid transit stations in Poland - category of metro lines cannot be a subcategory of stations. Categories of metro lines can contain many other items than stations only. See Category:Metro stations in Prague for an example. --ŠJů (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose As above –moogsi (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)- Oppose Agree with ŠJů. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Per consensus. FDMS 4 16:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Misspelled name (duplicate) of Category:Brachydiplax denticauda Jee 16:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Searching "Brachydiplax denticulata" on Google gets 64 results, seemingly mostly related to this category and a few other errant typos. Suggest deletion to avoid confusion –moogsi (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
No harm in leaving it as a redirect, if a typo can happen once... –moogsi (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Propose deletion. 1 failed image with an orb backscatter doesn't need its own speculative category. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I have no objection to the deletion: I have captured several angles of the facade of this notable Chapel of Saint Roch and I failed to find any round circling UFO or anything in the other photos; since I believe that Commons must be supported by objectivity to the extent that evidence of UFO photos must be supported by hard evidence, I have no objection to any deletion; In Time, however, We hope that a better and objective UFO can be seen and uploaded, Best regards.--Judgefloro (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Propose deletion. Category creator clearly interprets photographic backscatter as UFO's. These failed images don't need its own speculative category. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I have no objection to the deletion: since I believe that Commons must be supported by objectivity to the extent that evidence of UFO photos must be supported by hard evidence, I have no objection to any deletion; In Time, however, We hope that a better and objective UFO can be seen and uploaded, Best regards.--Judgefloro (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
There were at least two liners called "Rotorua": one built in 1910 and sunk in 1917; the other built in 1910 as "Shropshire", renamed "Rotorua" in 1922 and sunk in 1940. I have separated the photos into a separate category for each. Motacilla (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Empty category, moved to files under Category:Files by user SMAUG ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 17:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Empty category, moved to files under Category:Files by user SMAUG SMAUG (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Empty category, moved to files under Category:Files by user SMAUG SMAUG (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Is "African wars" a fixed term for a specific conflict? If not, the files should be moved to Category:Military conflicts in Africa. and the category deleted or redirected. Rudolph Buch (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
wrong name, I confused Yahoo with Google for some strange reason. Please delete as I created a category with the correct name Thelmadatter (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
To be deleted - replaced by Broagerbanen Beethoven9 (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Needs to be disambiguated with a number of other things called Kells, the en: wiki has a list of things here -- Deadstar (msg) 15:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- This category and its associated en:WP article were started by the now blocked Scotire (talk · contribs). Although the en:WP article has grown into a useful article from a historical point of view, there is nothing in this category that needs to be categorised outside the existing hierarchy, which is generally structured by by council areas and not civil parishes. I'll happily move its content to appropriate categories to free it up as a disambiguation category. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you could help, that would be great, thanks. If a category:Kells, Dumfries and Galloway is formed, most of the current content can be moved straight across. I'll have look and move anything that obviously belongs to the other (well, either of the Irish) Kells. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I've moved the content to correct categories and leave it up to you to populate Kells as disambig category. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks & also thanks to User:Moogsi for populating with the disambiguation links. All sorted! This can be closed. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I've moved the content to correct categories and leave it up to you to populate Kells as disambig category. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you could help, that would be great, thanks. If a category:Kells, Dumfries and Galloway is formed, most of the current content can be moved straight across. I'll have look and move anything that obviously belongs to the other (well, either of the Irish) Kells. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Category creates by mistake, duplicates Category:Russian Gates in Anapa Uncle Fred 16:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Дядя Фред: Sorry, but what exactly is a Russian gate? FDMS 4 12:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- ru:Русские ворота - it's the complex of this specific fortified gate (pictures seen in the category) and, originally, 8 towers connected by walls. The capitals are justified as it's a proper noun referring to a specific thing. It would be more idiomatically translated as "Russian Gate", even though ворота is plural. If you google it this seems to be the preferred name in English –moogsi (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect or Delete, doesn't matter, but the thing itself seems to be referred to as "Russian Gate" in English, so Category:Russian Gate, or Category:Russian Gate, Anapa would seem more apt –moogsi (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, please, name it Russian Gate, otherwise it would be very confusing. FDMS 4 01:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 04:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Numerous ships have been called Cornwall, including three of the Federal Steam Navigation Co. This category is ambiguous so I have recategorised all media from it to Category:Cornwall (ship, 1896). Has this now-empty category a purpose? Motacilla (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, add {{Disambig}} to the page, and provide a list of what it may refer to. This will place the category in Category:Disambiguation –moogsi (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguated as per nom. Feel free to add more categories as you find them. --rimshottalk 22:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete and upmerge. Poory defined - what is service? Food? Being able to sit down? Looking at pretty waitresses? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support upmerge. For the waitresses there's Category:Maid café maids. --rimshottalk 20:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Support upmerge. I really hoped this would be a category for other weird stuff that might happen in maid cafés (neck massages? Monster Hunter?) but I just see food, drawings, waitresses, and whatever is happening here... service? –moogsi (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Upmerged to [[::Category:Maid cafés]], as per nom. --rimshottalk 22:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I have moved all media from here to "Category:Arcadia (ship, 1888)", which I created. Should "Category:Arcadia (ship)" now be deleted? Motacilla (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguated, which seemed the obvious solution. Feel free to add more categories as you find them. --rimshottalk 22:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe it should be renamed Category:Aerial photographs of the Statue of Liberty and Liberty Island for consistency with similar categories ("photographs" rather than "shots"). Jmabel ! talk 06:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Aerial photographs of the Statue of Liberty and Liberty Island, apparently. --rimshottalk 22:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Not important people Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 04:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure if any of these video game screenshots are actually free. Considering how recent video games are compared to books, comics, music and movies, there is a good chance that nearly all of the screenshots are copyrighted. Fangusu (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Seemingly at least some of the screenshots originate from software with a CC license - so obviously not the category as such is in question but only some of the files in it. That means you´d have to request deletion for the particular images. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept, as there apparently are valid files in there. Please nominate those files for deletion that do not appear to be freely licensed. --rimshottalk 22:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure if any of these video game screenshots are actually free. Considering how recent video games are compared to books, comics, music and movies, there is a good chance that nearly all of the screenshots are copyrighted. Fangusu (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- I just looked at a few files on the first page at random and they were all fine (either free as the output of free software, or individual screenshots licensed via OTRS). Even if that weren't the case, a category that regularly contains a lot of copyvios is a good way to catch them, as they will be uploaded anyway. –moogsi (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept, as there apparently are valid files in there. Please nominate those files for deletion that do not appear to be freely licensed. --rimshottalk 22:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Duplicates exiting category:Cable ferries in the United Kingdom so please delete this one. I created it by mistake. Northernhenge (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
This category should be renamed to English: "Culture of Ponbashi". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- More properly would be Category:Culture of Nipponbashi, but honestly I think it's only there cos Category:Akiba-kei exists; there's nothing in it –moogsi (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: No need to rename empty cat. INeverCry 18:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Category is vague and prone to obsolescence: how long until a "new species" is no longer new? There is already a Category:Holotypes, which deals with specimens, but not species. Animalparty (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Even if "new" could be defined, the contents would constantly be rolling over. Note this is an bot-suggested category –moogsi (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Category is vague and prone to obsolescence: how long until a "new genus" is no longer new? There is already a Category:Holotypes, which deals with specimens, but not species or genera. In my view, sorting images by their status at only a single time makes little sense. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/09/Category:New species Animalparty (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Even if "new" could be defined, the contents would constantly be rolling over. Note this is an bot-suggested category –moogsi (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
This category has been superseded by "Category:Kitala (ship, 1957)". Motacilla (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I've moved all media from this category to "Category:Arahura (ship, 1905)". Does "Category:Arahura (ship)" still have a purpose? Motacilla (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- This could be recreated as a disambiguation page if there are other ships with this name. INeverCry 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)----
Deleted: INeverCry 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I created this category because i hadn't seen another one suitable for files I uploaded, which had already been made (Category:60A Królewiecka Street in Mrągowo) Misiek2 (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope and self promotion Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Feel free to speedy this kind of thing in future. INeverCry 18:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)----
Deleted: INeverCry 18:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
This category is a duplicate of Category:Sagra dell'Uva (Marino), so I think that has to be deleted. Gce (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
What in the world is the point of this category? The name gives no indication of its scope, there's no explanatory text, and I can't see anything that the images have in common, aside from tangential appearances of draughts that easily could be put in the parent Category:Draughts. Nyttend (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! Its Category from marks the place where held competitions: WCh, EC, Asia Championship etc. mb in future will be divided by country and city.--102RB (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps it could be Category:Draughts venues, along the lines of others in Category:Sports venues by sport. But the name definitely needs to change; it's baffling :) –moogsi (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Draughts venues as per moogsi. --rimshottalk 21:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
To be deleted - replaced by "Assens Kommune" and "Assens (Fyn)" Beethoven9 (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Risque d'ambiguïté avec Solaro (Italie). Un seul fichier, directement catégorisé dans "Town halls in Haute-Corse". Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Town hall of Solaro (Haute-Corse), which should be unambiguous. --rimshottalk 21:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Los datos sobre el autor de la escultura flor de juventud son erroneos. El artista que realizó esa obra escultorica es Pedro Zonza Briano. 190.230.128.193 09:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sí ya lo corregí, gracias. ¿Pero cual es el problema con la categoría? --Roberto Fiadone (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- (Translate: Thanks, I corrected the error. But I don´t understand, what´s the problem with the category? --Roberto Fiadone (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently, the IP user pointed out an incorrect sculptor named in the file File:Flor de Juventud Pedro Zonza Briano.jpg, which has been corrected in the mean time. --rimshottalk 22:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Closed, not a category discussion and the issue seems to have been resolved. --rimshottalk 22:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
To be deleted - replaced by Frejlev (Guldborgsund Kommune) Beethoven9 (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- COM:SPEEDY#Category indirectly suggests
#REDIRECT [[Category:Frejlev (Guldborgsund Kommune)]] {{Category redirect}}. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Frejlev (Guldborgsund Kommune), as per Be..anyone. I have also copied the description. --rimshottalk 22:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Underpopulated and mostly redundant to Category:Political leaders of Nazi Germany. And a colloquialism - if kept, "Nazi party" should more suitably be named NSDAP. Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Make it so (two files, one subcat already also contained in the better cat.) –Be..anyone (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Please provide parent categories and/or an English name. FDMS 4 23:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- The files are used in kk:Ақтөбе қаласындағы ФМБ НЗМ, which seems to be about either a particular school or a line of schools. There is an enWP article, too: en:Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools. This might make a good category name, but it would be really helpful if we knew whether this category is about one school or all of them. --rimshottalk 22:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools, as no better solution has been found. --rimshottalk 23:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
A nonsensical move of the category tree in June 2014 ŠJů (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The whole category tree (this category and tens of its subcategories) were moved in June 2014 to nonsensical, vague and confusing names.
The move was executed mentioning indirectly the May 2011 discussion about Category:Famous people. However, there was argued in that discussion: "There are a few subcats that arguably have some value (Category:Houses of famous people and Category:Birthplaces of famous people), and could be kept if we agree on some criteria for inclusion, but this category should be deleted and the earth salted so that it never haunts us again."
I believe, there exist some objective criteria what are "houses of famous people". Such houses are equiped with plaques, mentioned in guidebooks etc. etc. There exists an objective and clear importancy and relvancy of such item.
However, the whole category tree (including 51 country subcategories) was moved to the nonsensical name "Houses by association", though it contains almost no subcategories by association, especially not subcategories of houses of famous people or something similar. The categories are named as meta categories though they are not and should not be subcategories really. 51 useful and relevant categories were destroyed whithout any discussion and without consensual decision, despite the previous discussion arguments and opinion.
I really didn't agree that "houses by association" is an appropriate, fitting and understandable category name for houses of famous people.
I propose to rename/move all categories from the category tree back to the previous or similar names. --ŠJů (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The category makes no sense. I created the Category:Michael Guider and Samantha Knight, which was then put into this category by someone, but it is nonsensical. Possibly the person who created this category simply failed to say exactly what they meant, and had something else in mind entirely. Delete. Sardaka (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Kept: Sven did well. First of all he acted under general consensus, then we cannot keep arbitrary categorizations such as "famous people" (famous according to whom?). The category as it is now fits well because it describe to "what/who" a house is associated, no matter what is the subject of association. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
To be deleted - replaced by "FarumSlangerup" Beethoven9 (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- So … "FarumSlangerup" is supposed to be a railway line? References? FDMS 4 11:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Slangerupbanen" was the historical name of the railway Copenhagen-Slangerup. Farum-Slangerup is the disused part of this line, closed in 1954, while Copenhagen-Farum - called Hareskovbanen - is still active. The files in the category are related to the disused part only. Beethoven9
- @Beethoven9: Thanks for the info. Any objections to renaming "FarumSlangerup" to "Farum–Slangerup railway line"? FDMS 4 20:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is not a railway any more, but partially a footpath. "FarumSlangerup" complies with the naming convention of the other former railway lines in Denmark. Beethoven9
- @Beethoven9: Thanks for the info. Any objections to renaming "FarumSlangerup" to "Farum–Slangerup railway line"? FDMS 4 20:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Slangerupbanen" was the historical name of the railway Copenhagen-Slangerup. Farum-Slangerup is the disused part of this line, closed in 1954, while Copenhagen-Farum - called Hareskovbanen - is still active. The files in the category are related to the disused part only. Beethoven9
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
An "everything else" category that is redundant to
- Category:Keyboards (which includes keypads)
- Category:Musical keyboards
- Category:Control panels (engineering)
Also it seems an odd distinction, as it may not be clear that a computer is being controlled or just some electronics.
Of course the most obvious non-computer keyboards are Category:Typewriter keyboards, none of which are in here and all are over at Category:Typewriters. –moogsi (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to Category:Keyboards, please. FDMS 4 00:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
No opposition. Negative categorization is not ideal. Moving content to Category:Keyboards and deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The scope and inclusion criterion is unclear and prone to personal opinion rather than definitive features: apparently the only criterion so far is families with "Paradox-" in the name (formerly included was Category:Paradoxosomatidae. How can an entire taxonomic family be "paradoxical"? Animalparty (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Those responsible for naming this taxon evidently saw a paradox. I'm not a taxonomist, and I lack the time to hunt for the source. Since Google failed me, and since this category is probably not ever going to be populated by more than a handful of categories, if that much, I'm okay with deleting. I'll put the Paradoxosomatidae directly under Category:Paradox, that's ok for me. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Evidently saw a paradox" requires quite an assumption. In the case of Paradoxosomatidae the family name stems from the genus Paradoxosoma, one of the earliest named genera. Similarly, Paradoxididae derives from the name Paradoxides. Names of bioloigcal subfamilies, families, tribes, etc. are usually based on the earliest-named genus, thus there is nothing inherently paradoxical about the family, subfamily, etc. they simply possesses one or more members with a name that includes "paradox". For this reason, I think this and the other Paradoxical biological categories (below) are rather frivolous categories, akin to "Category:Names that contain the letters "d-o-g", that do not really define any members or lend themselves to useful categorization. (The unlikelihood of significant numbers of additional entries is another justification for deletion, as you mentioned). The only category I can reasonably see keeping are species with paradoxa in their name, but again I think scientific names given decades or centuries ago is a rather flimsy trait for categorizing. Animalparty (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Paradoxical biological genera
- Category:Paradoxical biological species
- Category:Paradoxical biological subfamiliae
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I think this would be much more usefull described (in line with the wikipedia article) "2014 Ferguson unrest" Ballofstring (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have no objection to renaming this category. When I created it, I followed the scheme of a similar category, Category:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, but the contents of this category are really more about the protests than the shooting.- MrX 12:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ballofstring, MrX: Category:2014 Ferguson Protests has since been created, which seems legitimate to me, though the P should really be lower case, and it could probably use some sub-categorization. I've moved photos of protests/unrest in Ferguson to that category, but I was unsure what to do with the photos of protests in NYC, which remain in Category:Shooting of Michael Brown. Move to Category:2014 Ferguson Protests or create Category:New York City Ferguson demonstration, or Category:Protest of Michael Brown shooting in New York City or equivalent? Note that Category:DC Ferguson demonstration exists in parallel.
- I think it's worth keeping this category now, since there are at least a handful of files that aren't related to the protests - the DOJ report and a diagram of the shooting. The protest categories can obviously remain as sub-categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep Files that do not document the shooting itself should be moved to properly named subcategries like Category:Reactions to the shooting of Michael Brown, Category:Rallies in protest of the shooting of Michael Brown, ... (and could some admin now close this after nearly 2 years of "discussion"? (random ping @Rama: -). --SI 13:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Would you like to make those moves, Schmarrnintelligenz? Then we can actually close. Btw, we actually have open "discussions" going back to 2011, so 2 years isn't so bad, relatively speaking. =( - Themightyquill (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: done. :) --SI 23:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Category kept, with images sorted into Category:Reactions to the shooting of Michael Brown and Category:Rallies in protest of the shooting of Michael Brown by Schmarrnintelligenz. (Thanks!) - Themightyquill (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Rename to Category:The Wedding church (Catholic). The Orthodox in the same village is also dedicated to the wedding. Danny lost (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support There is a nearby Greek Orthodox church dedicated to St. George which is also known popularly as the Orthodox Wedding church or similar. Its category is at Category:The Orthodox church (Kafr Kanna) –moogsi (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Done: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
All the underlying categories (within the "Pillories in district") are not in English - as an example Category:Pelourinho de Freixo de Numão. I propose that all the categories are changed to "Pillory in..." (so Category:Pillory in Freixo de Numão for the above example (I assume there's generally only one in a town). Before I list all those it impacts, can I get confirmation that this is a valid request? -- Deadstar (msg) 13:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Names are in portuguese, its native language, not in an invented (and wrongly translated by the way) and the Pelourinho it is more than the english pillory as it was the simbol of the power of concelhos from medieval times until the XIX century. Also see Commons:Categories#Category_names and where it says "Proper nouns which have not an established English variant are not translated ad hoc and use the original form". Tm (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- If they are proper nouns, that's fine - as you say, there would be no translation needed. I was under the impression that they are descriptive names, much like "Train stations of Paris" etc. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Not done: Per Tm - those are proper nouns, and should not be translated. -- Darwin Ahoy! 12:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
This category should be renamed to English: "Culture of Akihabara". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Considering en:Akiba-kei exists, I don't have a huge problem with having Category:Culture of Akihabara redirect here, or vice versa –moogsi (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- As mentioned on English Wikipedia article, Akiba-kei is not equivalent to the entire culture of Akihabara-neighborhood (including historical culture); Instead, it is an ironical nickname or business-driven buzzword referring several type of people and subcultures as if most likely to be seen in Akihabara, in contrast to already extincted Shibuya-kei people and its subcultures once seen in Shibuya for 20 years ago. If you want to create Category:Culture of Akihabara, it should be merely one of upper category of Category:Akiba-kei, because Akiba-kei is not the local culture of Akihabara-neighborhood. --Clusternote (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Closing as kept - Akiba-kei is clearly a separate subject. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
This category currently has "Category:Public transport in Kosovo" as a parent category. But charter buses are not "public transport". Does this suggest a reorganization is required? Geo Swan (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you think so, please nominate Bus transport, a subcategory of Public transport, for discussion rather than this one … Note that w:Category:Bus transport is a subcategory of w:Category:Public transport by mode too. FDMS 4 12:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
No action needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Something is wrong here. Toronto has multiple bus terminals where intercity buses terminate -- and the TTC has dozens of subway stations where TTC buses terminat, plus some number of terminii where buses and possibly streetcars terminate, that aren't adjacent to subway or GO train stations. Intercity GO buses terminate at Yorkdale, at Finch TTC station, and possibly other places. These are also "Category:Bus stations in Toronto". Why aren't they subcategories of this category? Is it that we don't have any images of them?
Currently, there is only a single image here: File:FinchTTCBusTerminal.JPG. Should the termini of intra-city TTC buses be listed here? Somewhat less than half of the TTC subway stations in Category:TTC stations have bus bays within the fare paid zone. Maybe File:FinchTTCBusTerminal.JPG and all other TTC stations should be listed in Category:TTC stations. Maybe all TTC stations should be in Category:TTC stations and those where TTC surface routes terminate should be listed in something like Category:TTC intermodal stations?
I know there is something wrong here. Geo Swan (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- You are right, by George! Until now all bus only stations in Toronto were categorized under Ontario. The use of this new sub-category for the creator's own single image seems a rather selfish approach - but we can work with it. You have populated the category with the relevant bus only stations. Now! What do we do with TTC stations? I have a couple of ideas but it will have to wait until tomorrow. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think that Category:TTC stations could become a meta category and redefined in three sub-categories: Category:TTC rapid transit stations (in line with parent category names), Category:TTC bus stations and Category:TTC streetcar loops. All of the current main category would be transferred to rapid transit, loops have been done and bus stations will be added where relevant. Stations would be in 1, 2 or 3 of these categories, and intermodal defined by specific purpose rather than the general term. That way we would avoid having them in both a parent and sub-category. Are you following me on this? Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
No action needed - category has been populated. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Even if there is written Bardarbunga, all pictures are showing the Holuhraun volcano field which is probalby part of Bardabunga, but not defantly Sanandros (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- The geological institutions in Iceland working with the Holuhraun eruption are publishing all information about it under "Bárðarbunga". See: http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/articles/nr/2947 (IMO) and http://earthice.hi.is/bardarbunga_2014 Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland. The petrological / chemical "fingerprint" of the laves is the reason for that. Reykholt (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Here is written that it is just indicating that Holuhraun and Bardabunga are connected together, but not prooved.--Sanandros (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Why not rename the category to "Category:Bárðarbunga volcanic system eruption in 2014"? Similar to the article de:Ausbruch im Bárðarbunga-Vulkansystem 2014 in the German wikipedia? Then it is easier to add the new photos to September 2014 (including link to the new category like examples in August 2014/July 2014 – please add one or two?) and to the (German and other future)Wikipedia-articles. --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Just pointing out that we do have Category:Bárðarbunga volcanic system which covers the whole mess, so I don't see a problem with having 'by date' categories under there if it's not clear where the origin of the activity is –moogsi (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Then we can also put all pic in Holuhraun in 2014 as just that lavafield is right now active and nothing else.--Sanandros (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is the old and the new Holuhraun lava (sometimes also called "Nornahraun" by Icelandic scientists), which overlap each other. The article, you referred to above, Sanandros, was talking about the old Holuhraun lava, the new lava field was identified clearly as coming from Bárðarbunga (proved by chemical analysis). Otherwise, IMO - and the Earth Science Institute of University of Iceland would have titled their articles otherwise. http://earthice.hi.is/bardarbunga_2014 . BTW: Not only the lava field is active at the moment, but the caldera is sinking since 4 months now in tact with the eruption, so ... Reykholt (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- PS: IMO (Icelandic Met Office, who are also checking on earthquakes and volcanic activity in the country), mention in their reports on Bárðarbunga / Holuhraun activity that chemical analysis shows that the lava comes from this volcanic system ( http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/articles/nr/2947 , 9 December 2014, scroll down): "The magma that comes up is a rather primitive basalt, with a chemical composition typical of the Bárðarbunga volcanic system. "
- Then we can also put all pic in Holuhraun in 2014 as just that lavafield is right now active and nothing else.--Sanandros (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Just pointing out that we do have Category:Bárðarbunga volcanic system which covers the whole mess, so I don't see a problem with having 'by date' categories under there if it's not clear where the origin of the activity is –moogsi (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Why not rename the category to "Category:Bárðarbunga volcanic system eruption in 2014"? Similar to the article de:Ausbruch im Bárðarbunga-Vulkansystem 2014 in the German wikipedia? Then it is easier to add the new photos to September 2014 (including link to the new category like examples in August 2014/July 2014 – please add one or two?) and to the (German and other future)Wikipedia-articles. --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Here is written that it is just indicating that Holuhraun and Bardabunga are connected together, but not prooved.--Sanandros (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Another article referring to the connection is eg. one of the regular reports on the eruption: http://en.vedur.is/media/jar/Factsheet_Bardarbunga_20141230.pdf Reykholt (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Could we pls. take this category down from the discussion list, in the meantime, there have been published lots of scientific articles proving the connection between the newest eruptions on the Holuhraun site and the volcano Bárðarbunga, see eg. Rossi, Cristian und Minet, Christian und Fritz, Thomas und Eineder, Michael und Erten, Esra (2015) Temporal monitoring of Bardarbunga volcanic activity with TanDEM-X. AGU Fall Meeting 2015, 14-18 Dec 2015, San Francisco. http://elib.dlr.de/102463/ Reykholt (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sanandros, Reykholt, and Moogsi: Closed (no consensus for change; already exists as part of system; name matches parent main cat) Josh (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Obrázky chybně zařazeny k jiné památce, měly by být u památky ID 23905/8-1244 Ferziks (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Dobrý den, mohl byste být, prosím, specifičtější? Všechny obrázky jsou chybně přiřazeny? Nestačí jen změnit popisek u této kategorie? --Podzemnik (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Není problém jen v tom, že zámku Zábřeh byl zde v záhlaví chybně přiřazen kód zámku Skalička? --ŠJů (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: Are you aware if this has been resolved yet? I'm happy to close this if it has. Josh (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Resolved. --ŠJů (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: Are you aware if this has been resolved yet? I'm happy to close this if it has. Josh (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ferziks, Podzemnik, and ŠJů: Closed (issue resolved) Josh (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
This category, if properly populated, would contain millions or even billions of files that have little or nothing in common. FDMS 4 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. For the slightly less messy Category:Online I used
__HIDDENCAT__ {{To check category header}}after it was empty (manual cleanup). Meanwhile it is again populated by 34 files. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is useful as a container category and to illustrate the topic of w:everyday life. It's about as essentials as Category:Humans, and the proposed criticism is an (in)valid as if we were discussing what to do with that category. It should, of course, be full of subcategories, such as by century and by region. Probably also by activity. From social sciences perspective, it is a very vital category in need of development. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- See the Wikipedia article – everyday life is a phrase, not something definite (good-looking people or nice guys are phrases too). You just can't tell whether, for example, this woman just left hospital walking for the first time in her life or this father knows that he will die of cancer the next day. FDMS 4 12:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- That's irrelevant; both cases would be everyday life for people somewhere. Most images showing people should within a category everyday life by place and time. Or, please tell me: if I am teaching a class on history of Korea, for example, what's the current best way for me to find images the educational topic of everyday life in Korea in 19th century? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- How could these two scenarios be considered "everyday life"? Again, there cannot be categories for everything — please tell me, how can I find images of good looking people/nice guys on Commons? There already are [century] people of [country/area] categories on Commons, but not for Korea. FDMS 4 15:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. It seems to me this is redundant with Category:Way of life which has been subject to discussions already: Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:19th-century way of life. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Everyday life, delete Way of life. For me, Everyday life is clear: It is what people do (nearly) every day and how they do it: sleeping, eating, drinking, shopping, cooking, cleaning, going to work or school, working, learning, interacting, playing, entertaining and so on, just as described in w:everyday life. And because everyday life might be different for different kind of people, places and times, I agree that it should indeed contain subcategories by period, region or (group of) people, and by subject. So I agree with Piotrus.
- However, I do not understand in what way Way of life is different from Everyday life. Unless someone could clearify that, my suggestion to solve this discussion would be:
- Add to Everyday life: subcategories for Everyday life by period and Everyday life by ethnic group (at least for the Don Cossack way of life, but it might apply to many more ethnic groups).
- Mark Everyday life as a parent category that should not contain any individual files. [done, 30-6-2019, JopkeB]
- Remove Healthy lifestyle from Way of life to Health education or Health promotion (what it actually is, according to the infobox).
- Remove the remaining subcategories of Way of life to the new subcategories of Everyday life by period and ethnic group.
- Categorize the remaining individual files properly (in Way of life as well in Everyday life - done for Everyday life); most of them do not seem rightly placed there. Of course I would like to help.
- JopkeB (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that this is worthwhile keeping, but I have moved the "way of life" categories here to at least consolidate (the files and the discussion). - Themightyquill (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 | Category:Everyday life | Merge into | Category:Human activities | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Category:Everyday life | Delete | ||
 | @FDMS, Piotrus, Themightyquill, and JopkeB: This is a case where we either must impose our own views as users and contributors on the content in deciding what constitutes 'everyday life', or we must be completely inclusive and allow inclusion of nearly every human activity, as most of them have been an everyday thing for someone at some point. I suppose a third possibility is that the category (and especially its branches) only get used a pet projects by some editors to create groupings to their liking of what meets their own concept of the idea. None of these is a good approach to a Commons category. These are human activities, and files depicting these activities can be done perfectly well arranged under Category:Human activities. There is probably no debate that sleeping is an everyday activity, but shopping, auto racing, or conflict are debatable. What is the value of some arbitrary line we impose on what is "everyday"? | |||
 | Josh (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
- I stand by my prior view, it's a high level container category. What's the problem? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Even if I accept that, there's not thing to keep it a high level container category. It currently has a signficant number of images directly in the main category, and the sub-categories are only consolidated at all because I did so fairly recently. Even if images are subcategorized by country, that's still an incredibly broad category. Substitute "everyday life" with the word "everything" (which isn't hyperbole when you're talking about everyone in a country throughout time, or the whole world during one century) and Category:Everything in the United States or Category:Everything in the 16th-century both look rather ridiculous, don't they? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: Your comments above seem to indicate (please clarify if I am reading them wrong), is that anything considered 'everyday life' by anyone at any time can be included, with sub-categorization to sort things out. If that is the case (and again, correct me if I am misinterpreting you), then what difference do you see between Category:Everyday life and Category:Human activities, and if there is a difference, what need is there for an additional level of 'high level' categorization to separate the two? Josh (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Everyday life should be a subcategory to Human activities. It should eventually be a conmtainer category, but we may need to create a bunch of subategories. And it clearly has images which are not everyday life, like File:Fred Wheezy.jpg or File:FredrikTheng-15.jpg. Posing for camera is not everyday life. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Surely, posing for cameras is everyday life for many people. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Everyday life should be a subcategory to Human activities. It should eventually be a conmtainer category, but we may need to create a bunch of subategories. And it clearly has images which are not everyday life, like File:Fred Wheezy.jpg or File:FredrikTheng-15.jpg. Posing for camera is not everyday life. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- My heart still says: Keep Everyday life. But my head tends to transfering this category to Human activities, because there are at least two problems/issues/challenges with Everyday life:
- There is no clear definition and no dividing line between what is in and what is not. For Human activities there is a clear definition and a dividing line. And all Everyday life activities are Human activities.
- Within subcategories of Everyday life there are subcategories that do not belong to Everyday life. For example (via People by activity) the Category:Sleeping people. Sleeping in your own bedroom at home is indeed Everyday life. But People sleeping on trains or Sleeping people under tree is not. Are we going to split the Category:Sleeping people (and many others)?
- So for practical reasons I vote in favour of the proposal by Josh. JopkeB (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Done: this discussion determined that: a) if the nominated category is kept and is meant to capture human activities, it becomes redundant to Category:Human activities; b) if its contents are to be decided on by editors, it becomes subjective, which is undesirable for categories. There is consensus to merge the contents into Category:Human activities. --ƏXPLICIT 06:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
It is difficult to separate Category:Ruins of medieval castles from parent cat Category:Ruins of castles. There is no description. Does medieval castles mean built in the middle ages or destroyed in the middle ages? I assume the first. In my POV we have castles (which are either medieval or reconstructed (but then, usually not ruins)), fortresses (built also for military reasons but later) and palaces (having no defense purpose). Castles are a constituting part of the middle ages, as they got useless soon after strong fire arms have been in use.
So my proposal is to merge Category:Ruins of medieval castles back to the parent category. What do you think? I would risk that there are some few reconstructed castles built after the middle ages and and fallen to ruins in the general category. If that is not feasible, turn it the other way round, let's have a Category:Ruins of non-medieval castles instead. Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support merge and than a category redirect to Category:Ruins of castles. I agree with your argument. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment The parent category Category:Medieval castles and its subcategories should be taken into this consideration. Generally, some countries use the word "castle" (or their local equivalents) as a umbrella term covering also chateaus etc. "Medieval castles" is used as a narrower term for castles stricto sensu. --ŠJů (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- As we do in German when we translate Schloss and Burg back to English. But I try to separate Category:Castles from Category:Palaces and Category:Manors. There are only rare cases of Category:Ruins of palaces. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 | Category:Ruins of medieval castles | Keep | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| @Herzi Pinki and P199:
| |||
| Josh (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
- this CFD can be closed as kept, solution per user:Joshbaumgartner and others. Word "castle" is ambigious but this is other topic--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 09:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
To stop confusion with Category:Guarda, Switzerland and other places called Guarda. Note that there is also the municipality of Guarda, Portugal (which lies within the district). Would there be any need to disambiguate all the underlying categories with "Portugal" too? -- Deadstar (msg) 14:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- My initial template was swiftly removed [1] by Tm (talk · contribs). As I disagree with the reasoning given "its clear that ths is Guarda district, and not Guarda switzerland and Guarda, municipality or city" (otherwise I would not have flagged it) I would like to reinstate and give it a bit more time to see if there are any more opinions. Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Per reasons stated above. This district is in Portugal and not in Switzerland were the only Guarda is a mere municipality (the same as the portuguese municipality of Guarda), so there is no place to confusion. Tm (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Weak support "District" has no strict definition, and we should assume the least knowledge on the part of the user and specify the location. Just saying "well it's obviously in Portugal because it's the only Guarda which is legally defined as a district (when glossed into English)" assumes everyone knows that which is very far from the truth –moogsi (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Thats why that the desambiguations page exist, and if a person is searching for Guarda (whatever it is) it should know what Guarda it is and if its searching for Guarda (district) it should know that there is only one Guarda district and that district is in Portugal. So this is an unecessary to specify that the district is in Portugal, as there no other one. Tm (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, we differ only on the point that anyone who enters "Guarda" into HotCat or whatever definitely knows that "Guarda (district)" unambiguously refers to somewhere in Portugal. It doesn't. Imagine that someone using the cat system may not know that Guarda in Portugal even exists and that, e.g., a Gemeinden or a commune or a distrito or a município could reasonably be called a "district", and maybe you will see what my point is? You seem quite certain though, so I'll just leave it there. –moogsi (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting - I'm with you Moogsi, exactly why I raised it. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- How many Guarda districts there is? Thousands? Hundreds? Dozens? No, there is only ONE Guarda district, so there is no ambiguation, and this attempt to specify seems to assume that people are so stupid to the point of not making a search, even in the unlickly cenario that this people who are searching for Guarda dont know what Guarda they are searching for, or, to simplify, this is a solution in search of a problem. Even the English Wikipedia makes this simple by merely calling the article about this district as Guarda District. Tm (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Tm: Is there any reason the Commons category should not be renamed to Guarda District as the aforementioned enwiki page (and English WD label) are? Josh (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- The disambiguation suffix "(district)" is the same for all other categories of districts in Portugal, which are also names of their capital city... What is made in the English Wikipedia may be different, but not relevant here where Commons is also linked like here in Portuguese Wikipedia. Being consistant per country helps. Just look at parent categories. Decisions and talks in English Wikipedia for their own articles or categories do not apply to other because Commons have other naming policies (notably, it prefers toponyms to be named according to the major local languages, so the set of disambiguation is different from English Wikipedia where names are always favoring the English language and include translated toponyms or different orthographies adapted ONLY to the English-speaking community). verdy_p (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Why was this discussion reopened 5 years after the last topic and with a totally different subject is beyond me. But, per Verdy p. We are not an extension of Wikidata or English Wikipedia. Also, to the ones that dont know Portuguese, just as an example, today October 6 2019, was the 2019 Portuguese legislative election. The MP´s are elected by district and in Portuguese televions when talking of the districts they always spoke of Guarda, Lisboa, Porto, etc, not the "Distrito da Guarda", "Distrito de Lisboa", "Distrito do Porto", etc. So very rarely is the suffix "Distrito" used when speak of the portuguese districts. Tm (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- I did not reopen it: there was no action for this request, it was closed in 2014, but reopened by an admin restoring the banner 5 years after, and then instructing me not to "stop" removing it, as if I have forced the deletion (that admin even threatened me to block me immediately for that cleanup I made 5 years ago, which is I think a very bad way to work cooperatively as he could threaten anyone that has made any edit for which he has some different point of view! such threats posted immediately as the only form of discussion is clearly a bad sign, an abuse of privilege: in 2014 he was not even an admin, he is now just taking actions by reviewing very old history logs and tries to force a position he did not have, instead of initiating a new talk with his own reasons for posting the banner himself and using normal talk and cooperation rules).
- The CFD help page instructs us about delays for actions to be taken. But admin action to restore such obstructive and polluting banner 5 yers after is inadequate. So I was forced by this admin to post my own view here. For me such banner posted one time and supported by a single user without any serious action or talks, and without any analuysis of the impact of the banner and without any correct proposal of change, is just very bad. To say to more clearly, I'm NOT wanting to restore this old talk, when it was supposed to be closed since 5 years. Speak to the admin that restore it (abusively in my opinion). verdy_p (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- For your information, you may look at this other talk in 2014, on a user page: User_talk:Waldyrious#Category:Guarda,_Portugal, which explains why the disambiguation was needed (and also speaks about a former disambiguation using ", Portugal" ambiguous suffix (in another older category that was merged to this one). I do think that the disambiguation suffix "(distrist)" is accurate and does not cause any problem, and it is coherent with all other related pages for other districts and all subcategories that were finally correctly sorted and unified to avoid the confusion between the city and the district, without causing any problem with other locations outside Portugal. Districts in Portugal are wellknown as an important level of subdivisions under which many items can be sorted in Commons. Now the English Wikipedia can use its own local naming scheme, what they do there should not impact what other wikis will want to support possibly with yet another naming and disambiguation scheme. Commons is international and not bound to English Wikipedia decisions, made essentially by English-only speaking people without talking or informling to any Portuguese-speaking community. Such Portuguese topic should always be made with correct information of the relevant community (and this was never done). I don't support the adminsitrative forced reintroduction of this banner. verdy_p (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Verdy p: This discussion was never closed. If it had been, it would not be in the backlog for users such as myself to have to clean up. You may want it closed but all you did was bury it by removing the banner that so offends you on the category page. As was mentioned to you, this is not permitted without the discussion being closed. Unfortunately, your reaction has made it near impossible for your perhaps valid substantive points regarding the actual discussion because they are difficult to sort out from your rant against the process. This actually only delays the successful closing of this discussion and means all the longer the banner will remain. To facilite a quick resolution, I would advise that you discuss the process and the actions of other users in a more appropriate venue and stick to substantive comments relative to the category in question in this one. Josh (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- The disambiguation suffix "(district)" is the same for all other categories of districts in Portugal, which are also names of their capital city... What is made in the English Wikipedia may be different, but not relevant here where Commons is also linked like here in Portuguese Wikipedia. Being consistant per country helps. Just look at parent categories. Decisions and talks in English Wikipedia for their own articles or categories do not apply to other because Commons have other naming policies (notably, it prefers toponyms to be named according to the major local languages, so the set of disambiguation is different from English Wikipedia where names are always favoring the English language and include translated toponyms or different orthographies adapted ONLY to the English-speaking community). verdy_p (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Tm: Is there any reason the Commons category should not be renamed to Guarda District as the aforementioned enwiki page (and English WD label) are? Josh (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- How many Guarda districts there is? Thousands? Hundreds? Dozens? No, there is only ONE Guarda district, so there is no ambiguation, and this attempt to specify seems to assume that people are so stupid to the point of not making a search, even in the unlickly cenario that this people who are searching for Guarda dont know what Guarda they are searching for, or, to simplify, this is a solution in search of a problem. Even the English Wikipedia makes this simple by merely calling the article about this district as Guarda District. Tm (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting - I'm with you Moogsi, exactly why I raised it. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, we differ only on the point that anyone who enters "Guarda" into HotCat or whatever definitely knows that "Guarda (district)" unambiguously refers to somewhere in Portugal. It doesn't. Imagine that someone using the cat system may not know that Guarda in Portugal even exists and that, e.g., a Gemeinden or a commune or a distrito or a município could reasonably be called a "district", and maybe you will see what my point is? You seem quite certain though, so I'll just leave it there. –moogsi (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Why using offensive terms like "rant" here. This does not deserve anything except invalidating your opinion for most others (and so this disqualifies you with any intent to participate to solve this pseudo-issue you resurrected: see above, others wonder why this banner and talk comes back here when it was considered closed and never contested in 5 years, and the naming convention has been then widely been used by many for creating many other pages).
- And you have reopened something 5 years (sic!) after the facts that were not contested, and long after all questions about ambiguities were solved cleanly for the relevant topics and the naming convention was not contested for all other districts in Portugal, and also not for the cities/towns/village in Switzerland, or other terms with which there was no ambiguity at all. There was an earlier talk even before in 2014 (see the link) and lot of works has been made since then to make sure that there was no longer any ambiguity anywhere.
- Now I'm not sure about what you want to contest here: this can only be the subject of a new talk with explicit goals, taking into account the question for all other districts in Portugal and all their relevant subcategories and navigation that have been unified since then, and all cases of miscategorizations caused by past ambiguities have been hopefullly solved. What do you want to contest now? This can only be in a new separate topic and you'll need to contact Portuguese authors, at least from their portal here on this wiki. verdy_p (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 09:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)