Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2016/10
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 October 2016
Should be removed, it's replaced by "Category:Stadler FLIRT in the Netherlands" Joenit (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've tagged it with {{Bad name}}. An admin will probably take care of it soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
relocated to clearer CAT (request by creator) Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Changed dest of redirect to Category:Tea museums, seems to be better than disambiguating. --Achim (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
すいません、勝手がわからず移行させてしまいましたが、Cuisine of Kyotoから他の県の慣例に従ってCuisine of Kyoto ｐｒｅｆｅｃｔｕｒｅに変更することを提案します。 Ocdp (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: empty cat. --JuTa 20:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
relic of moved category, pleas delete it, thanks a lot, Agruwie talk 10:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
typo. now at category:Duke of Wellington statue, Woodhouse Moor sorry, ny mistake WereSpielChequers (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Empty category. Self-promotion from Wikipedia spammer Mdhashim24. McGeddon (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't like deleting categories which are tagged {{Authority control}} but in this case the only ac entry is of MusicBrainz. The MusicBrainz record is completely empty exept a mirror of the ms:Hashim Azmi stub. So there's nothing worth keeping. --Achim (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
So, are there any trams with one door only? (This is a courtesy CFD – since all subcats are empty, this category qualifies for speedy deletion.) FDMS 4 18:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like this thing has only one door, assuming it is not bidi. This other thing has only one entrance, but it being uncovered that might not be termes as a proper door. However it is very likely that some of the weirder stuff under Category:Service trams might turn up as single door. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe this one, very obviously unidirectional, has only this door? Too bad we only have photos of the right side. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: File:S.P.B. X 103 pic4.JPG makes it look like it has two … Anyway, historical service trams are obviously a good point I apologise for having overlooked, so before I withdraw this: What about Lisbon? FDMS 4 23:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Category:Lisbon trams with 1 door was created to accomodate this one, before it become clear that the new bodywork just swapped the doors on one of the ends. That one can be deleted, unless something I dont know about pops up. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: File:S.P.B. X 103 pic4.JPG makes it look like it has two … Anyway, historical service trams are obviously a good point I apologise for having overlooked, so before I withdraw this: What about Lisbon? FDMS 4 23:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Are you sure KS tram №S2 doesn't have another one on the other side? FDMS 4 23:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, you're right: It might have. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nopes: the left side is doorless see this photo (if this entrance is a door at all, as said). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, you're right: It might have. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Are you sure KS tram №S2 doesn't have another one on the other side? FDMS 4 23:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn. Thanks for the insight – I strongly doubt there's going to be something related to trams in Lisbon you don't know about popping up, therefore I've requested speedy deletion of Category:Lisbon trams with 1 door. FDMS 4 00:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
This is the same mountain as Gallitzinberg. darkweasel94 12:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Dann sollte man es ändern.. --Hubertl 12:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Redirected to Category:Gallitzinberg. --Achim (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
مسلسل سامحيني 197.129.168.145 10:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Google translation of the Arabic: "series forgive". No idea what that might mean. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure what the deal is here, obviously some sort of socking going on. It's a valid category. —SpacemanSpiff 10:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with SpacemanSpiff. With no reason given for deleting, I suggest this be closed with no action. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --lNeverCry 21:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
مسلسل سامحيني 197.129.172.191 19:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --lNeverCry 21:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
سامحيني مسلسل 197.129.168.145 10:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Google translation of the Arabic: "Forgive Series". --Auntof6 (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- With no reason given for deleting, I suggest this be closed with no action. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --lNeverCry 21:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
delete this empty category? Drbones1950 (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for now - I don't even remember why this was here. Possibly used for an image that has been since deleted. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: empty cat. --JuTa 00:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I created this category but it seems useless, because stations of this line have been categorized in Category:Shenzhen Metro Line 1.そらみみ (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: No problem, deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Also:
Redundant with respective letter combination category. FDMS 4 23:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment I think too, That's right. ABC letter combinations and ABCD letter combinations --Benzoyl (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: These categories do appear to be redundant given the existence of AB letter combinations etc. --DAJF (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Requested speedy deletion. FDMS 4 19:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
FDMS4, really? --Achim (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Of course, why would I forget to do so? (The previous sentence may contain a lie.) FDMS 4 17:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
To be deleted - replaced by Baptist churches in Denmark Beethoven9 (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Redirected (COM:REDCAT). FDMS 4 18:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Category:Journal of the ... annual convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the state of North Carolina (1866)
[edit]The category indicates that the publications are from 1866, but in fact the category contains convention books from 1990 and 1966. They may be in the public domain because the church does not copyright materials, but they are not in the public domain because of date of publication Drbones1950 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Moved by Drbones1950, files renamed as well. --Achim (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Pundit is a relevant word in English. It not seems to be a good idea to keep a redirect to user page. Sturm (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. I don't see a good place to redirect it, and I don't think we need a "Pundits" category, so I say delete. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete --Achim (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I nominate this category for deletion, because this category is empty. All of the images and sub-cats that were previously here are now in the category Dioceses of the Episcopal Church (United States). Drbones1950 (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. Thanks to Drbones1950. --Achim (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Suggest that this category be deleted. It has only one sub-cat, Protestant priests by country, which only has one subcat, Protestant priests from Germany, which is empty. So the category and its subcats are not associated with any media. Besides, the category is meaningless since Protestant churches do not call their clergy priests. Drbones1950 (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've tagged all three with {{Empty page}}, so an administrator will probably delete them soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted by Jcb 14 October 2016. --Achim (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Commons in not an encyclopedia. (COM:NOT) jdx Re: 02:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've tagged it as an empty page. An admin will probably delete it soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --lNeverCry 03:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
correctly written version would be Corregidora → «« Man77 »» [de] 20:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Moved. FDMS 4 21:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I nominate this category: Dioceses by organization, for elimination. It has no images and only one subcat: Oriental Orthodox Diocese, which is empty. Drbones1950 (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted by Jcb 18 October 2016. --Achim (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Please delete. Files moved to better expression Category:KZ-Außenlager Haslach im Kinzigtal Roland.h.bueb (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hast recht, Roland, das passt besser. --Achim (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
needs deletion- mispelled name - moved to correct name Deror avi (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, what about Category:Lipman's well? --Achim (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Bad name}}, so an admin will probably see it and delete soon. For future reference, {{Bad name}} can be used in cases like this without the need to bring here for discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Bad name. --Achim (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
mispelled - to be deleted. moved to correct spelling Deror avi (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Bad name}}, so an admin will probably see it and delete soon. For future reference, {{Bad name}} can be used in cases like this without the need to bring here for discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Bad name. --Achim (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I nominate this category for deletion. It does not have any images, and the only subcat: Bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of Western Massachusetts, is empty Drbones1950 (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. You're welcome. --Achim (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I nominate this category for deletion because it has no images, and is a duplicate of category:St. Andrew's Episcopal Church (Birminham, Alabama), which now contains images. Drbones1950 (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Redirected. --Achim (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Typo, should be category:Gibson Mill, Hardcastle Crags WereSpielChequers (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I tagged it with {{Bad name}}, so an admin will probably delete it soon. --Auntof6 (talk)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Malthonica ferruginea is now called Tegenaria ferruginea as per the World Spider Catalog at [1]. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Moved & redirected. --Achim (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Now Eratigena agrestis according to the World Spider Catalog [2]. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Empty, redirected to Category:Eratigena agrestis. --Achim (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Umm...why have a subcategory based on source for a species? (t) Josve05a (c) 16:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: No answer for weeks: Merged up and deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the sence of this cat as it has the same pics as it's parrent cat Category:Ehrenplakette der DDR Staatssicherheit - Dr. Richard Sorge. I think it should be either deleted or we find diffrent cats and avoid overcat. Sanandros (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. FDMS 4 19:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: No objections. --Achim (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The user created a category for himself. There is only one image of him. This image can go in Category:Writers from India, for example. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep: There is a wikidata record, an authority control record, and on 3 wp projects articles about him can be found. No need to empty this cat. --Achim (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Kept. --Achim (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no "St Thomas' Church, Bampton".There is a St Thomas' Church, Brampton in Derbyshire. Motacilla (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted & File:St Thomas' Church, Brampton.jpg renamed. --Achim (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Catégorie en double (cf Category:María (Film of 1922)) Lepsyleon (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Category:María (Film of 1922) is a bad name. It should be Category:María (1922 film), or maybe just move everything back to the category nominated here. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Category:María (film) deleted, Category:María (Film of 1922) moved and redirected to Category:María (1922 film). --Achim (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Please delete category Weinbaumuseum Meersburg. New category and name of the museum Vineum Bodensee. Roland.h.bueb (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Redirected to Category:Vineum Bodensee. Roland, war die Galerie Vineum Bodensee beabsichtigt, oder sollte das die Kategorie werden? --Achim (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Achim55, danke für das Redirect. Vineum Bodensee sollte keine Galerie, sondern eine aktuellere Category werden. Der Artikel über das Vineum Bodensee wird von mir neu angelegt.--Roland.h.bueb (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Kein Problem, hab die Galerie gelöscht. --Achim (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Achim55, danke für das Redirect. Vineum Bodensee sollte keine Galerie, sondern eine aktuellere Category werden. Der Artikel über das Vineum Bodensee wird von mir neu angelegt.--Roland.h.bueb (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Redirected Category:Weinbaumuseum Meersburg to Category:Vineum Bodensee. --Achim (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
他の県の慣例に従ってCuisine of OkinawaからCuisine of Okinawa Prefectureに移行することを提案します。 Ocdp (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Google translation of the above: "I suggest that you migrate from Cuisine of Okinawa to the Cuisine of Okinawa Prefecture in accordance with the practice of other provinces." --Auntof6 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- This sounds reasonable to me, since the category is under Okinawa Prefecture and not under Okinawa Island. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:Cuisine of Okinawa prefecture. --Achim (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Nepotřebuje prodiskutovat, je blbě. To Wikidata potřebují prodiskutovat. Juandev (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Juandev, I don't understand it using Google translate. --Achim (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Kept: No further information. --Achim (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
a bit too much normalization in the category tree, for a single object. I propose to resolve this category and move all categories up to the individual cemetery. Herzi Pinki (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: No objections, deleted per above. --Achim (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Should be deleted. It's empty. Not many Americans claim Seminole descent that are not members of Seminole tribes. Bambi spam (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Bambi spam: Indeed, but I believe we could categorise people that claim to be descents of a tribe as [tribe] people as well since people doesn't require them to be members, but simply related to the tribe in any way. In other words: Any objections to getting rid of the newly-created Category:American people of Native American descent as well? FDMS 4 20:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- It seems like Wikimedia Commons' categories should correlate in some way with Wikipedia categories. The "of descent" categories are for people who have a particular heritage but are not citizens, such as Category:Canadians of Danish descent (not citizens of Denmark) or Category:Americans of Somali descent (not citizens of Somalia). There is not yet a Category:Seminole people, since apparently there's not yet a need in Wikimedia commons, but inclusion in a Seminole people category would imply that the individual is, in fact, Seminole. Yes, feel free to delete both categories. It looks like some people went on a rampage categorizing celebrities by every possible ethnicity in their family trees. Bambi spam (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Bambi spam
- Delete Empty, delete. Lymantria (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, was craeted by trolling IP. --Achim (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand the purpose of this category. I think the files could be moved elsewhere, maybe to appropriate subcats of portrait photographs. The two subcats could either be moved or maybe deleted and the single file in each also be moved to a portrait photo category. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Auntof6, I first didn't notice that it's been created by indef blocked user WayneRay who created some more 'remarkable' categories. I just removed both of the subcats. --Achim (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Emptied and deleted. --Achim (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Der Name ist nicht eindeutig. Es wurden Straßen einsortiert. Sollte in "Strada (Restaurant)" geändert werden. Dies kann man an der Oberkategorie erkennen. Hiddenhauser (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Support Category:Strada (restaurant) und danke an Hiddenhauser für's Aufräumen! --Achim (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:Strada (restaurant) and disambig'd Category:Strada. Same procedure for Category:La Strada. --Achim (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
needs to be deleted, created because the one lone photo in it was misnamed Thelmadatter (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Error in category name. See Category:Kholopka GAndy (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Eine deutsche Kategorie (mit Deppenleerzeichen) für einen französischen Anschlag? Derbrauni (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, dupe of Category:2016 Attack in Nice. --Achim (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Empty and redundant category, for deletion please. Tom_elmtalk 11:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted on wikidata as a hoax Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Along with Category:Moskvich 408, we can rarely be sure, if the vehicle is 408 or 412. There were virtually no external differences, only the engine and gearbox stick, but the latter feature cannot give 100% confidence (on a steering wheel in case of 408, except for latest 1973-1975, and on a floor in case of 412, but except for earliest 1967-1968 ones). The current division seems to be based upon descriptions (which might be false) and a rule of thumb, that early body vehicles (before autumn 1969) are 408, and late body vehicles - 412, but it is not necessarily so. While most of early body vehicles are 408, also 412s were produced with early body in 1967-1969. New body (with a suffix IE) was introduced in 1969 to both models. I don't know which was more numerous, but surely some vehicles labelled as 412 are in fact 408. So I propose to leave only Category:Moskvich 408/412. Eventually there may be created a sub-category Moskvich 408/412IE for late vehicles, if anyone needs. --Pibwl (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: No objections: Moved content to Category:Moskvich 408/412 leaving redirects. --Achim (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
moved to a new name. can be deleted Deror avi (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- It still has some files in it. When it's empty, you can put a {{Category renamed}} template on it to get it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Deror avi: I see that this category is now empty, so you can put the {{Category renamed}} template on it. I would do that myself, but I don't know the new name. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Empty, deleted. --Achim (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
No need to a separate category for just one file. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 01:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Its single File:Crest of Army Dental Corps.jpg is already member of Category:Army of India. So I removed it from Category:Indian Army Dental Corps. --Achim (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Empty, deleted. --Achim (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
No need of separate category for just one file. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 00:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Kept, contains 3 images now. --Achim (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
"Tolminkiemis" is a former name of Chistye Prudy, for which we already have Category:Chistye Prudy, Kaliningrad Oblast. The Category:Tolminkiemis now contains images from the Memorial Museum of Kristijonas Donelaitis in Chistye Prudy, so it should be renamed to Category:Memorial Museum of Kristijonas Donelaitis in Chistye Prudy. --Illustr (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: per Illustr's suggestions. --Achim (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Category is effectively empty, having no templates. It contains one page, but that page doesn't seem related to the cat name. Auntof6 (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete it then. --E4024 (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
It does not need discussion, it needs deletion. Taterian (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Empty, deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Deletion request, duplicate of Category:Banjar people. I re-categorized the two images that were in this category. D-M (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- D-M, danke für deine Kategorisierungsarbeit in Südostasien! Weil Banjarese offenbar keine Falschschreibung oder sowas ist, habe ich lieber einen category redirect gesetzt. --Achim (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank für die schnelle Reaktion! --D-M (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Redirected empty Category:Banjarese to Category:Banjar people. --Achim (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I find doubtful use of such detailed subcategory, considering, that styling changes were minor and they had no separate designation Pibwl (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is fine. Someine might be interested in this kind of detail. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Actually there are a few categories with such detail level. see search--Pierpao.lo (listening) 19:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Kept, no consensus. --Achim (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
delete: unused category WikedKentaur (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Category redirect for 2 years now, no need for deletion. --Achim (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Kept. --Achim (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The name of this category should be "Lowestoft Lighthouse", see here. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, until 1923 there were a 'high light' and a 'low light'. --Achim (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: moved per above leaving a redirect. --Achim (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Deprecated naming-national article is at w:State of Palestine, so rename to Category:Scouting in the State of Palestine--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is an article w:Palestinian territories as well - the difference is just the point of view. If it were moved to Category:Scouting in the State of Palestine it had to be removed from Category:Scouting in Israel. I have no preference on that. --Achim (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed there is, but it is not the national article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Changing my nom to the neutral Category:Scouting and Guiding in Palestine per Good Olfactory at the English Wikipedia--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:Scouting and Guiding in Palestine leaving a redirect. --Achim (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Unhelpful (the majority are not bibles) and likely to be copyrighted texts (book covers) ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Asked Baba66 for assistance (Teppich ausbreit). --Achim (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Only Bibles left. --Baba66 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Danke, Baba66, bistn Schatz, das kann ich gar nicht wieder gutmachen. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, feel free to file deletion requests via COM:DR procedure because deletion of files is beyond the scope of CfD processes. --Achim (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Only Bibles left. --Baba66 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Cleaned up by Baba66, many thanks!. --Achim (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that this category be renamed:Washington Park, Portland, OR. There are other Washington Parks, and the others are distinguished by more precise place names Drbones1950 (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support Category:Washington Park (Portland, Oregon), per naming scheme of other (disambiguated) parks in Category:Parks in Portland, Oregon. --Achim (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:Washington Park (Portland, Oregon) and made Category:Washington Park a disambiguation. --Achim (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that this category be renamed Washington Park Historic District (Ottawa, Illinois), as there is an existing Washington Park Historic District (Albany, New York) Drbones1950 (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. --Achim (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:Washington Park Historic District (Ottawa, Illinois) and made Category:Washington Park Historic District a disambiguation. --Achim (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Empty category Nickel nitride (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Kept, no problem. --Achim (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
No indication of what makes a river major. Besides that there is only one subcat (major rivers by country), and that subcat has only a category for Iceland. I suggest the entries under Category:Major rivers of Iceland be moved to Category:Rivers of Iceland or other subcats of Category:Rivers of Iceland by type, and all three "major river" categories be deleted. Auntof6 (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete --- "Major" is too subjective for useful categorization. — hike395 (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Inge, was machen wir jetzt? Ich verstehe schon, was du meinst, es gibt ja de:Flusssysteme (en:Drainage system (geomorphology)), die mit einem Haupt-Fluss entwässern, der ins Meer mündet, like en:Elbe or en:Rhine or en:Mississippi River. The article of the latter reads "The Mississippi River is the chief river of the largest drainage system on the North American continent." That's it, draining main/major rivers that flow into the sea. But I don't know if there is a precisely matching special word in English language. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- It think it is not really necessary to have this category which is neither a scientific one.Reykholt (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Inge, was machen wir jetzt? Ich verstehe schon, was du meinst, es gibt ja de:Flusssysteme (en:Drainage system (geomorphology)), die mit einem Haupt-Fluss entwässern, der ins Meer mündet, like en:Elbe or en:Rhine or en:Mississippi River. The article of the latter reads "The Mississippi River is the chief river of the largest drainage system on the North American continent." That's it, draining main/major rivers that flow into the sea. But I don't know if there is a precisely matching special word in English language. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. Thanks to Inge for agreeing. --Achim (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
either redirect this to Mexican feather art or delete Thelmadatter (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Empty & dupe, deleted. Mexican featherwork might redirect as there are a few other cats of that scheme. --Achim (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Category:Wikimania 2016 - Going mobile and keeping editing: needs and challenges to edit Wikipedia from mobile devices
[edit]Empty category, don't expect it to be filled. Effeietsanders (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --INeverCry (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Empty category, don't expect it to be filled at this point any more Effeietsanders (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --INeverCry (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Empty category, don't expect it to be filled any more at this point Effeietsanders (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --INeverCry (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I am unable to identify the tool which uploaded files to this category. (It definitely was not UploadWizard, which never used localised category names.) The most recent files seem to be from 2013, so whichever tool it was, it is long fixed or defunct. I don't think this category has any value (even if it was categorized under Category:Files by upload tool, since we don't actually know the tool…) and should be cleaned up. Matma Rex (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Note: I started discussions for four similar categories: Category:Subido con UploadWizard – Category:上傳與 UploadWizard – Category:Przesłane z UploadWizard – Category:Caricato con UploadWizard. Matma Rex (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete --Achim (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --INeverCry (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I am unable to identify the tool which uploaded files to this category. (It definitely was not UploadWizard, which never used localised category names.) The most recent files seem to be from 2013, so whichever tool it was, it is long fixed or defunct. I don't think this category has any value (even if it was categorized under Category:Files by upload tool, since we don't actually know the tool…) and should be cleaned up. Matma Rex (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Note: I started discussions for four similar categories: Category:Subido con UploadWizard – Category:上傳與 UploadWizard – Category:Przesłane z UploadWizard – Category:Caricato con UploadWizard. Matma Rex (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete --Achim (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --INeverCry (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I am unable to identify the tool which uploaded files to this category. (It definitely was not UploadWizard, which never used localised category names.) The most recent files seem to be from 2013, so whichever tool it was, it is long fixed or defunct. I don't think this category has any value (even if it was categorized under Category:Files by upload tool, since we don't actually know the tool…) and should be cleaned up. Matma Rex (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Note: I started discussions for four similar categories: Category:Subido con UploadWizard – Category:上傳與 UploadWizard – Category:Przesłane z UploadWizard – Category:Caricato con UploadWizard. Matma Rex (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete --Achim (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --INeverCry (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I am unable to identify the tool which uploaded files to this category. (It definitely was not UploadWizard, which never used localised category names.) The most recent files seem to be from 2013, so whichever tool it was, it is long fixed or defunct. I don't think this category has any value (even if it was categorized under Category:Files by upload tool, since we don't actually know the tool…) and should be cleaned up. Matma Rex (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Note: I started discussions for four similar categories: Category:Subido con UploadWizard – Category:上傳與 UploadWizard – Category:Przesłane z UploadWizard – Category:Caricato con UploadWizard. Matma Rex (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete --Achim (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --INeverCry (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I think this category is twice. see Category:Dublin. Please merge.
- --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. Thanks, Arnaud Palastowicz. Category:Dublin is much older, more used, and has the wikidata link. This should be done asap, unless anyone has a clear objection. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Redirected. FDMS 4 15:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. Basque and Galician elections should not be mixed this way. Fortunately, the subcategories are not mixed, so splitting this category would be easy. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Split into Category:2016 Basque parliamentary election and Category:2016 Galician parliamentary election. Deleting category. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Merge to pre-existing Category:Accommodation bridges Andy Dingley (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Although quite similar, I don't think they are the same thing. Gordon Biddle, in "Railways in the Landscape" says: "That is why British railways have so many accomodation bridges and crossings, so-called because they were provided- often reluctantly- to accommodate landowners by connecting their severed lands. Occupation bridges serve the same purpose on private roads and tracks". Every source I have seen so far, whether Network Rail, Department of Transport, Canals Trust or parliamentary debates, distinguishes between the types of bridge. I think we should follow terminology in the sources and not confuse users by lumping them together. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Can we make two such categories work? If they're so close, how accurate is the description of each image going to be? If we simply have bridges (and likely the same bridges) dropped randomly into either category, how is that going to be better than one?
- If there is such a distinction, can you please make it clear at en:Accommodation bridge ? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would presume that the bodies responsible for these bridges would know the difference- in my copy of the Network Rail datbase, of over 28000 bridges, just 90 are described as "accommodation", and there are many more labelled as "occupation". That's a reliable source for categorisation, and I would presume that railway experts and canal experts would understand the difference. There's always a danger of miscategorisation by non-experts, but I would imagine such an expert coming to a mixed category and complaining "why are all these lumped together, when they are different entities?". As for making the distinction clear on en:WP I am currently unable to edit there. Not that I miss it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Then you'll have missed the thoroughly typical en:WP shindig at present, where the book which ought to be explaining this (Ellis' Encyclopedia of railway terminology) isn't to be considered as RS, because the RAIB reckons it is, but a railway modeller at en:WP reckons it isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hm, doesn't look like consensus by now. I added a {{Cat see also}} to both of the cats and will close during the next days. --Achim (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Then you'll have missed the thoroughly typical en:WP shindig at present, where the book which ought to be explaining this (Ellis' Encyclopedia of railway terminology) isn't to be considered as RS, because the RAIB reckons it is, but a railway modeller at en:WP reckons it isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would presume that the bodies responsible for these bridges would know the difference- in my copy of the Network Rail datbase, of over 28000 bridges, just 90 are described as "accommodation", and there are many more labelled as "occupation". That's a reliable source for categorisation, and I would presume that railway experts and canal experts would understand the difference. There's always a danger of miscategorisation by non-experts, but I would imagine such an expert coming to a mixed category and complaining "why are all these lumped together, when they are different entities?". As for making the distinction clear on en:WP I am currently unable to edit there. Not that I miss it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
All the images taken from a non-free sources:The Logo is not licensed under a free license and all the images of this site (in all languages) stolen from the internet ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see only logos of language sections and software screenshots of Uncyclopedia. They're (texts and parts) are licensed by CC-BY-SA 3.0. = I don't see any problems. Michaelversatile (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Out of process scope. Feel free to request deletion of its content via COM:DR. --Achim (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Alpensia; should be merged. Resort is probably more descriptive so a better name. I suggest moving all pictures and redirecting the category. Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Hanyangprofessor2: You gave the same name twice here. What category is this a duplicate of? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think that should read Category:Alpensia Resort. --Achim (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support Move to Alpensia Resort, as per en:Alpensia Resort. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: Merged and redirected to Category:Alpensia Resort. --Achim (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
In Category:Christianity by city, shouldn't the subcat Category:Christianity by city by country be renamed "Christianity in country by city" because that is the form of the subcats within: for example, Category:Christianity in Chile by city and Category:Christianity in Spain by city? Drbones1950 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Using the word by twice is standard naming for cats like this. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Auntof6 that "by" should be used twice, not "in". - Themightyquill (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
No consensus to change. Closing. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Paintings in the Canaletto Room? Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but only this cat is correctly named. All subcats and Filmes should be moved here.--Oursana (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing and Oursana: Since the parent category is Category:Canaletto Room (Royal Castle, Warsaw), wouldn't Category:Paintings in the Canaletto Room (Royal Castle, Warsaw) be the best for symmetry? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes this sounds betterOursana (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing and Oursana: Since the parent category is Category:Canaletto Room (Royal Castle, Warsaw), wouldn't Category:Paintings in the Canaletto Room (Royal Castle, Warsaw) be the best for symmetry? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Paintings in the Canaletto Room (Royal Castle, Warsaw). - Themightyquill (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a confusion around tomato categories. I guess Category:Tomatoes as food should include both tomato dishes and food and beverages made with tomato, like tomato juice or tomato paste. These latter ones (tomato products) should be categorized as Tomato-based food. All dishes in this category should go to Category:Tomato dishes. We should also have a Category:Tomato dishes by cuisine or country. (To put inside the cats like the Category:Tomato dishes of Spain). Am I clear? E4024 (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- One comment: tomato paste is not a beverage, it is an ingredient. Tomato dishes should be under tomato-based food, not the other way around. As far as tomato dishes by cuisine/country, would that mean dishes that originated in the country or dishes photographed in the country? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, I know that tomato paste is not a beverage, I use it every day in my kitchen. (I don't know who cooks better but I admit my English is worse then yours. :) Secondly, I don't think that I said anywhere that tomato dishes should not be under tomato-based food; therefore we agree on that. Thirdly, of course tomato dishes by cuisine or country should be under the cuisine or country to which they belong. Here there is a gazpacho I made: thumb|Gazpacho-E4024 Of course it is in Category:Gazpacho which is under Category:Tomato dishes of Spain. (Of course this shouldn't prevent us from adding, for example, "Category:Restaurants in Ankara" if the picture was taken in a restaurant in that city.) Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, is this the order you're suggesting?
- Category:Tomatoes as food
- (Images of chopped tomatoes, Category:Canned tomatoes, and other tomato-only largely unprepared foods)
- Category:Tomato-based food
- Category:Tomato paste, Category:Tomato sauce, and Category:Ajvar (and other tomato-based prepared foods that aren't dishes)
- Category:Tomato-based beverages
- Category:Tomato dishes
- Category:Stuffed tomatoes (and other generic tomato-based dishes, as well as those that don't have a "by country" sub-category)
- Category:Tomato dishes of Spain
I'm a little confused about the distinction between "Tomatoes as food" and "Tomato-based food". Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging E4024 for feedback. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with the formula. --E4024 (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Organized per list above. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
This category uses the non-U.S. English definition of tram, which word has no single common meaning in U.S. English. Given the latter point, all U.S. categories below country level should use the most common U.S. term, "streetcar" (e.g. "Streetcar stops in Arizona"). This practice is already in use for Wikipedia categories below country level (see en:Category:Streetcars in the United States by state; many of the categories within that parent cat have existed for several years, as "Streetcars in ...." cats). Steve Morgan (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- This category and all of its subcategories should be moved from "Tram stops in ..." to "Streetcar stops in ..." – Steve Morgan (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Stop this silliness, please: Create a thousand soft redirects for tram categories using "streetcar", "trolley", "thingamajig" and "dingalingaloo" as much as it makes you feel fuzzy, but stop jeopardizing Common’s nomenclature stability and overall useability with pandering to local English dialects: English speakers who never encountered the word "tram" need to learn it in order to use Commons properly, just like any non English speaker needs to English to do so. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep current name per Tuvalkin. FDMS 4 18:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep current name--However, several category redirects are appropriate. The problem is not just a question of tram vs streetcar, it also incorporates light rail. If the "Trams stops in _____" categories are changed to "Streetcar stops in _____" then there must also be a distinction for light rail (with streetcar being a subset of light rail). Due to the additional confusion this would cause (particularly since there is not a clear distinction between which lines are streetcar and which are light rail), it would be best to remain as is. Notwithstanding, the matter is a good issue for discussion. An Errant Knight (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Light rail "stops" are called stations, because they are much more substantial and much farther apart (except sometimes in the city center portion of a regional system) – and have a much greater impact on their surroundings than does any single streetcar stop. There is already a Commons category for them: Category:Light rail stations in the United States. Nowadays, very few U.S. systems are hybrids of light-rail and streetcar-type operation (Muni Metro being one of the very few), and I no good reason to use, in local U.S. categories, a term (tram) that isn't widely understood by Americans. Doing so creates confusion. – Steve Morgan (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. There's no reason to be insulting, Tuvalkin. We are talking only about state- and local-level categories for a country whose dialect of English (American English) – worldwide, possibly the most widely used dialect of English in the 21st century – does not use the word "tram" in this way. I have no objection at all to the use of British English in category names for non-North American subjects, but users of Commons's U.S. state- and local-level categories (who are mostly people just looking through categories for photos – not people creating or adding to cats, such as you and me) are much more likely to be speakers of American English than of British English. How does this proposed change – to a newly created category – "jeopardize Common’s nomenclature stability"? What policy can you point to that supports your assertion that this is somehow important? No, native speakers of American English should not be, and are not, required to learn British English to use Commons, in the case of categories containing solely U.S. content, especially when the British English term involved has completely different meanings in U.S. English. Steve Morgan (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- No one would have guessed you're supporting your own proposal. Every Commons user is required to "learn" basic international English (or EFL) in order to use categories no matter what language is spoken at the location the respective categories are related to, see our language policy. Also, take a look at this article in that UK-based organisation's encyclopedia. FDMS 4 12:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- That Commons page you cited makes no mention of "international English", only "English" (which does not mean British English to the average American). And that English Wikipedia article you cite, which was en:Tram, can be reached by any American English speaker looking for info. on the subject – when they do not know the British word for the subject, which is the group my proposal is intended to help – via a single redirect (be it streetcar, trolley car, etc.), whereas my proposal would clarify the situation for numerous categories. If only 2 or 3 category redirects would address this issue, I would have just created them and never started this discussion. – Steve Morgan (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- No one would have guessed you're supporting your own proposal. Every Commons user is required to "learn" basic international English (or EFL) in order to use categories no matter what language is spoken at the location the respective categories are related to, see our language policy. Also, take a look at this article in that UK-based organisation's encyclopedia. FDMS 4 12:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Strong support per nom. Categories about topics in the United States should use American English. Most American visitors aren't familiar with the word "tram". We should be prioritizing users over editors, and there's no need to confuse visitors for the sake of a uniform naming scheme that matters only to editors. - Eureka Lott 18:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. This is a project-wide issue, which needs to be dealt with on a project-wide scale, not locally at CFD. --ƏXPLICIT 00:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Reasons for discussion request --Reykholt (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- The category denomination Category:Old maps" is not a scientific one. IMHO it should be "historical maps" - which would also touch all the connected categories like Category:Old maps of the Alps etc.
- On the other hand, the denomination Category:Historical maps is not identical with "maps re./about history". It means depending on definition eg. "maps drawn up before" a certain date (eg. 1900). What would be your proposals?Reykholt (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- It would be analogue to "historical images" (eg. Category:Historical images of the canton of Graubünden) which are neither images re. the history of a country or region, instead the title refers to another epoch.Reykholt (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it makes more sense to categorize by century than to organize our category structure around an arbitrary/shifting date. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Maps by time already exists, which contains categories for maps by century and maps by year, so I don't think there's any need for this vague "old maps" category. --ghouston (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it makes more sense to categorize by century than to organize our category structure around an arbitrary/shifting date. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- It would be analogue to "historical images" (eg. Category:Historical images of the canton of Graubünden) which are neither images re. the history of a country or region, instead the title refers to another epoch.Reykholt (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment For old maps of particular places -- eg old maps of cities or towns or states or counties or departments -- it makes good sense to keep all the old maps together in a single category. There usually aren't nearly enough to justify fragmenting eg by century. It makes sense to retain "Old maps" categories for larger areas, eg countries, as natural containers for the categories of old maps of regions, counties, cities, etc. Jheald (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see the point in keeping a map of Amsterdam from 1922 together in a category with a map of Amsterdam from 1300. "Old" is simply not a useful category. If centuries are too narrow in some cases, then sorting by historical era (medieval, etc) would be better. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's sufficient to add the 1922 map, for example, to Category:Maps of Amsterdam (or a relevant subcategory) and Category:1922 maps. There's no need to create every possible intersection category. --ghouston (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see the point in keeping a map of Amsterdam from 1922 together in a category with a map of Amsterdam from 1300. "Old" is simply not a useful category. If centuries are too narrow in some cases, then sorting by historical era (medieval, etc) would be better. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete As said above, "old" is not useful in any way to define what a category may contain.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- "Old" still makes sense for those countries that still use a 70 year copyright. However, the biggest copyright country, the USA, changed to 95 years, so this matters less than it did.
- One might also want to remember, most maps are compiled from the latest information and intended to present a place as it is at publication time. For these there's no need for separate "made" and "depicting" cate categories. The distinction of "historical map" applies to those few that depict the past, for example the many made in the mid 19th century to depict the growth of the Roman Empire. These are both old and historical, while those made in the late 20th century to depict Continental Drift are historical without being old. Either of these should have both kinds of datecat. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Closing admin, remember to delete the whole category tree if this is deleted, or to rename the whole category tree if this is renamed. Nyttend (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. It has been around for another year and a half but I agree that it should be put in a holding cell of some type so that people can categorize (or just dump the pages into the generic history of categories) and then we can sort these out by dates as is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment There seems to be a majority in favour of getting rid of these categories: User:Reykholt, User:Themightyquill, Me, User:DarwIn, and User:Ricky81682 in favour, but User:Jheald and User:Jim.henderson opposed. Is that sufficient to do it? --ghouston (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- We'll see if admins can get around to these old discussions. Even if done, there's a lot of work to do anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- It seems a good enough majority for me. What, am I admitting I'm outvoted? Yes. It seems we have no custom of a No objection vote, but I do not object and there's no good reason to keep the question open indefinitely. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep -- I very strongly object to this proposed deletion. In the next few months I'm on track to land two sets each of up to 30,000 old maps here, with extensive detailed categorisation. It is very useful to be able to segregate current maps, typically created digitally from digital mapping systems either by users or from OSM, from scanned old maps which have an entirely different feel, do not portray the world as it currently is, and have different points of interest -- for example, an old maps category might typically be ordered by date, which would be very annoying for a mixed category, if the modern maps were only on the last page. It's better for people interested in either type for that type to be segregated from the other type.
- The old maps hierarchy has been in place since 2006. It contains thousands, possibly tens of thousands of categories. It preserves a valuable distinction. It is not appropriate to destroy this classification that a lot of work has gone into, and wreak havoc on such a scale, on the basis of a proposal and a discussion that has attracted essentially no attention or interest in the last three years, and has not been advertised on even one in a thousand of the categories it would affect. Jheald (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
* Discussion linked from Wikimaps facebook group Jheald (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. While I am happy with the idea that old maps is something of a holding category for files that haven't yet moved into categories of maps per year, a category of old maps of a particular city should be kept as its useful. For example the Wikipedia article on that city could use various old maps of a city in a minigallery or gif to show change over time. WereSpielChequers (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jheald: No one is talking about destroying the built-up classification system, but about replacing it with something more useful: categorization by century of creation, and century depicted. If it was just deletion, I would have done it and closed already. But I'm not going to delete anything without sorting the existing contents of these categories. The creation of these replacement categories is an enormous amount of work. We have Category:Unidentified date where we could create a sub-category for future maps to be sorted. Sorting via sort key within an "Old maps" category is far from ideal. What sort key would you use, for instance, on a 19th-century map of medieval Lisbon? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a bit tricky. Category:Old maps of Amsterdam is now quite large, and it should be possible to sort the contents into centuries. But you get files like File:Amsterdam1593.jpg, apparently published in 1609 but described as 1593. I'm not sure if that was the date the map was made. So does it belong in Category:16th-century maps of Amsterdam? There's also File:Jan Micker - Bird's Eye View of Amsterdam (ca. 1652).jpg which is a painting of Amsterdam of the 16th century. I'm not even sure if it's a map, but I suppose it would be a 17th-century map of Amsterdam (and then you need more categories for the century depicted in the map). --ghouston (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Pretty much the whole of the hierarchy under Category:Old maps of Great Britain is sorted (within its categories) by date, and it works fine. Across Commons as a whole, I would think between 30% and 50% of old maps have a sort key to force a sorting-order by date within the old maps category. See eg Category:Old maps of whole Wales (alone) for a typical example. This works far better than people over-sorting by date, as per for example the categories under Category:17th-century maps of Wales which seem to me a complete waste of time.
- For some examples of typical old maps categories, see eg the categories under Category:Old maps of county towns in England. There are a few more maps going to be coming into these categories, see eg Commons:British Library/MC maps batch 06 (GB towns and cities) and User:Jheald/BL18C/batch_06_(GB_towns_and_cities); but the number for each town or city is never going to be huge. There really isn't any value in forcing such categories to be split up be century -- it's much easier and more useful to be able to browse all of them together, something that is true of very very many of the old maps categories.
- As for old maps depicting a previous time, we have a standard template {{TFOMC}} giving specific instructions on that, which generates eg Use the appropriate category for maps showing all or a large part of England. See subcategories for smaller areas:
.jpg){kind=link}
| If the map shows | Category to use |
|---|---|
| England on a recently created map | Category:Maps of England or its subcategories |
| England on a map created more than 70 years ago | Category:Old maps of England or its subcategories |
| the history of England on a recently created map | Category:Maps of the history of England or its subcategories |
| the history of England on a map created more than 70 years ago | Category:Old maps of the history of England or its subcategories |
- The recommendation (since 2006) is to put them in a separate sub-hierarchy; though sometimes this has not yet been particularly well populated. As an aside here, I would tend to distinguish between two sorts of maps: on the one hand a later facsimile or redrawing of an early map -- eg a 19th century re-drawing and engraving of a 1610 map by John Speed. These I would tend to file in the main sequence, sorted to sit along with other maps by John Speed, so ie with a sort-date of 1610. The other is eg a map newly drawn in the 19th century, depicting an earlier period. These generally fall into a natural hierarchy of groups according to what they depict -- eg Old maps of Anglo-Saxon Britain, Old maps of the history of the city of Norwich, Old maps of the English Civil War, Old maps of the Battle of X -- which make for a natural categorisation. Within such groups, I think it makes sense to sort by the date the map was published, then an identifier for the book, then the volume/page within the book. This keeps like together with like, so that if a book presents five maps of the development of Anglo-Saxon England, or the development of the city of Norwich, these are presented together and in sequence.
- So my view is that the existing system is well-designed, and has good answers for most of the requirements of it. Jheald (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I still don't think it's a good system. If there are only a few maps of a place, there's nothing to be gained by splitting out the "old" maps, since as you say you can order them by date if desired in a single category. Also, who is going to bother going through all the maps categories every year, to move those maps that are now 70 years old (by creation date or first publication?) into an "old maps" category? --ghouston (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ghouston: Except there is something to be gained by splitting out the old maps, because then you can go to the category one cat up, like Category:Old maps of county towns in England, and immediately see a run-down of which such places we have old maps of, and how many.
- The issue about having to worry about maps first published in 1948 and move them is a red herring. The number of such maps is tiny, because they are mostly not out of copyright yet. Most maps when they go out of copyright would go straight into an old maps category. If a handful of maps are not moved as soon as they could be, out of the very large number of old maps we have, frankly it's a drop in the ocean, and not worth too much anxiety.
- The real point, as I wrote above, is that there is a qualitative difference between scanned old printed maps, and newly-drawn modern maps. They are different genres of thing, and it's useful to be able to browse and explore the old printed maps for their own sake. Jheald (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I still don't think it's a good system. If there are only a few maps of a place, there's nothing to be gained by splitting out the "old" maps, since as you say you can order them by date if desired in a single category. Also, who is going to bother going through all the maps categories every year, to move those maps that are now 70 years old (by creation date or first publication?) into an "old maps" category? --ghouston (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Closing as Kept. While the term "old" is by itself vague, the "old maps" category is well established and found useful on Commons, and no alternative name nor arrangement for a parent category has been agreed upon. (Further details and comments: The hat-note specifying "70 years or older" helps remove vagueness - any set number of years would be somewhat arbitrary, that number is as good as any. "Historic" or "historical" maps is similarly vague if not more so - a famous map from any year could be called historic, while a map published in an obscure newspaper or magazine 100 years ago might have little or no historical importance; if age is the defining factor, "old" is a clearer adjective than "historical". We already have many more specific subcategories, eg in Category:Maps by year for when more precision is desired.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
No need of a separate category for just one file. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 01:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- In many cases, single-item categories aren't necessary, but I don't have a problem with this one. It has two different significant attributes -- sports and the Indian Army -- and it separates the file from sports in the other branches of the Indian military. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
closed. no action taken as per Auntof6. this cat now has 2 files and is a reasonable parallel cat to Category:Sports in the Indian Navy.--RZuo (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I think this should be renamed, contains CoA of women from the Netherlands. Achim (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Renaming sounds like a good idea. Maybe we should whiden the category into coats of arms of women in general, so not just Dutch women. Dqfn13 (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Achim55 and Dqfn13: we already have category:coats of arms of Canadian women. So in this case: category:Coats of arms of Dutch women?--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Fine, no objections. --Achim (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have any objections. So please, go ahead. Dqfn13 (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Fine, no objections. --Achim (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Achim55 and Dqfn13: we already have category:coats of arms of Canadian women. So in this case: category:Coats of arms of Dutch women?--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I suggest this category be renamed to Category:Icebergs in Chile. I just added an image of an Chilean iceberg, in a lake, in Chile. Icebergs are not always off a coastline. Further, an iceberg that is off the coast of a nation -- beyond it territorial waters -- should be in the category for the ocean. Only list the iceberg in the nation category if it is within the nation's territorial waters... So, "in", not "off". Geo Swan (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. Icebergs off the coast of a place are not in the place. Maybe we need both "off" and "in" categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- If they are within the nation's territorial waters, they are, in fact, both legally and geographically IN that nation. You do realize that territorial waters now extend 200 km? That is a long way. Any iceberg farther off the coast than 200 km should be listed solely in the category for that body of water. Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, that's a good point. I suppose some images could even be in both types of category, in a country and in a body of water. Since both of the files currently in this category appear to be in lakes, there's no question about how far off the coast they might be, so I'm OK with renaming. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- If they are within the nation's territorial waters, they are, in fact, both legally and geographically IN that nation. You do realize that territorial waters now extend 200 km? That is a long way. Any iceberg farther off the coast than 200 km should be listed solely in the category for that body of water. Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan and Auntof6: Do we have consensus to move everything in Category:Icebergs by region to Category:Icebergs in X ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. In view of what Geo Swan said, we'd have to know exactly how far off the coast each iceberg is, wouldn't we? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- I thought consensus was that, if something is more than 200km off the coast of a country, we should just categorize it by ocean. I mean, something 20 meters off the coast of Japan is also, technically, off the coast of California, isn't it? =) So all the category names should be "in" even if that means some of the images are mis-categorized. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I see what you mean. That's probably best, although I think that many could be categorized both by country (or state, province, etc.) and by body of water. There are probably places with coasts of more than one ocean/sea where there could be icebergs: Antarctica, Russia, and Alaska come to mind. Actually, speaking of Antarctica, the 200-mile thing wouldn't apply, because Antarctica is not a country. Not sure what would be best there. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- I thought consensus was that, if something is more than 200km off the coast of a country, we should just categorize it by ocean. I mean, something 20 meters off the coast of Japan is also, technically, off the coast of California, isn't it? =) So all the category names should be "in" even if that means some of the images are mis-categorized. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. In view of what Geo Swan said, we'd have to know exactly how far off the coast each iceberg is, wouldn't we? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Is that consensus then? The en:Antarctic Treaty System includes anything south of 60 degrees, so that should work for us. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support for harmonizing to "IN", eg Category:Icebergs in Chile. Should be consensus--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved to "Icebergs in X" -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Only 1 file about this subject is present and it is unlikely that other images will come in the future. Basilicofresco (msg) 22:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Greetings! It is very clear that you know quite a bit about meteorites - for myself, I know almost nothing. So you are much more expert than I am, and I must say I am delighted with the work you are doing in categorizing meteorites. However, in this case, it might be worth slowing down. The Meteorical Society's register for this meteorite [3] says that its mass is 12 kg, and identifies (at present) 19 different collections that contain pieces of this meteorite, along with photographs from each collection. In addition, I have found additional pieces for sale on the Internet. In truth, I don't really care whether there is a category for this meteorite, and certainly don't want to create an argument about it! But I think the justification that "it is unlikely that other images will come in the future" may not be entirely accurate. with all best wishes, Daderot (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Daderot! Well, deleting or not deleting this category is not an important issue. We can keep it if you want. I usually create a category for a specific meteorite only when there are at least 3 images in order to avoid a large number of categories with just 1 file (this does not sound helpful to the readers). Moreover a total mass of 12 kg is relatively small and the rock was purchased in Tucson (with no information about the exact found location as usual for NWA meteorites), so no new material will arrive with the same name. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 11:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Basilicofresco - No problem. It seems that in general I like categories, but really this is perfectly fine with me. You're doing wonderful work with meteorites, from what I see. All best wishes, Daderot (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, let's keep it. However there is only another category for a NWA meteorite (Category:NWA 3151) and it is using the short name. Making the NWA category names uniform sounds like a good idea. Northwest Africa 5549 is the official name and NWA 5549 the official abbreviation. Since the abbreviated name for NWA meteorites is usually much more common than the full name (in this case 81 hits on Google vs. 15), we could rename this category to Category:NWA 5549. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 09:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: closing as deleted and using category:NWA 5549, and it sounds as a category redirect is not needed. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- This discussion affects this category, some of its subcategories, and the categories Category:Universities and Category:Colleges. Also it may affect partially the Category:Universities and colleges.
The subcategories of Category:Universities and colleges by country were named following the U.S. model, but this is incompatible with the other countries' system and real situation.
In Moldova universities and colleges are absolutely different things; they are on different educational levels (!) and thus can't be put together in one category named "Universities and colleges in Moldova" - it's nonsense. There should be Category:Universities in Moldova and Category:Colleges in Moldova.
A similar situation is in many Eastern European countries, especially in post-Soviet states, notable Russia, Ukraine, etc. etc.
In Romania, as you can see in ro:Colegiu, a college is, in fact, a lyceum with only the title of "colegiu" (college) or "colegiu național" (national college).
So, I propose and request to (re-)create/restore the Category:Universities and Category:Colleges, and their subcategories, and to allow further existence of these categories standalone, not redirected, for countries where a joint "Category:Universities and colleges" is not appropriate. XXN, 14:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe the categories that aren't specific to any country should be called "post-secondary educational institutions". That would be in line with the categories for primary and secondary schools. Categories specific to countries would use colleges and/or universities as appropriate for the named country. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I don't like much the term Universities and colleges too: for example in the United Kingdom and in Europe in general colleges are a costituent part of a university (i.e. a school of law, or medicine) or even an high school. In Italy collegio means a school - secondary or higher - where students are resident. But since College in English has not the same meaning as Collegio in Italian or Colegiu in Romanian (to give an example, in English Pavement is not the same as Pavimento in Italian though the root is the same: in Italian Pavimento is the floor, and in English is a boardwalk or the surface of a street) but is more extensive, and since the categories of Commons are in English, we must take College as equivalent to an universitary institution. I suppose that the unification of categories "Universities" and "Colleges" was done just because in the latter were falling educational institution that didn't meet the criteria of "College" as intended in English language. As I said I don't like it too, but this is the less ambiguous categorization we might have. As Auntof6 says, post-secondary educational institutions might be fine, even as mother category, but I am not sure that many people would recognize immediately it as equivalent of "University / College". -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, Blackcat, an aditional motivation for me to start this discussion was the fact that some time ago you renamed Category:Universities in Moldova to Category:Universities and colleges in Moldova, ignoring the fact that early this year I renamed this category to a correct name. In my plans was to create Category:Colleges in Moldova and to populate it with proper content. For example Category:Railway Technical College, Bălți has nothing to do with any university of Moldova and can't be put together with higher educational institutions in a common category. BTW, in place of colleges we can put academies in a common category with universities. --XXN, 20:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Is there a common name in all/most of countries for "post-secondary" education? F.e. in Russia we called it "higher education" (высшее образование in Russian)? --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. In the USA, and in all other places following the same model, the result of your proposal would be confusing. In countries where universities and colleges are significantly different, e.g. your Moldovan example, the solution is simple: create "Universities in Moldova" and "Colleges in Moldova" and make them subcategories. However, bear in mind that we follow English usage: do speakers of English typically call a Romanian lyceum a "college"? Greatly modifying our whole tree, based on non-English usage, is quite unhelpful. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- This is what I want: for countries where it is appropriate, to have by two categories named "Universities in X" and "Colleges in X". We'll need some kind of template to append to those categories to not have them merged again to a mixed "Universities and colleges in X". People here are tempted to do an uniformization even if it's not needed. --XXN, 20:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- The existence of this peculiar cat has had harming effects on other projects, AFAICS: In Wikidata we have two different categories about the universities in Turkey, item Q9032983 and Q7696450. Some WPs have linked their WP cats to one, and others to the other item. For some strange reason I cannot even merge them! When you want to go from here to WPs, through the given link, you can only go to "some" of them who have a category for Universities in Turkey and not to some others. Don't tell me please that our mistakes de not contribute to other mistakes... Please those people active in Wikidata and Wikipedias help to solve this (general) issue. E4024 (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Rename Category:Universities and colleges to Category:Higher education institutions This would remain as a parent for both Category:Colleges and Category:Universities which can be used as appropriate to sort contents that specifically are one or the other, while not requiring such selection where it is not appropriate. "Universities and colleges" is a fundamentally flawed name, thus this rename improves compliance with the Hierarchic, Simplicity and Selectivity Principles. Note, this is the term used at higher education institution (Q38723).
@Auntof6, XXN, Blackcat, E4024, Nyttend, and Igel B TyMaHe: : Would you be okay with this so we can close this CfD and move forward? Josh (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: yes, provided it's consistent through the whole tree, i.e. Higher education institutions in Italy, Higher education institutions in the United Kingdom and so on. -- Blackcat
17:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Blackcat: Understood, and yes, it would start at the top and have to be implemented through the tree, per the Universality Principle. Josh (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: in this case you've my consent. This discussion has lasted 6 years and 3 months too much IMHO. -- Blackcat 17:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: in this case you've my consent. This discussion has lasted 6 years and 3 months too much IMHO. -- Blackcat
- @Blackcat: Understood, and yes, it would start at the top and have to be implemented through the tree, per the Universality Principle. Josh (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- OK with me. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Rename Category:Universities and colleges to Category:Higher education institutions | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
This category has a confusing name, because "by city" is usually used for metacategories. This is not a metacategory: it contains only files, no subcategories. I believe that here "by city" means that the files have been ordered by city name. Could we either:
- Change the name of the category to something like "Tram maps of Upper Silesia sorted by city name"
- Move the contents up to Category:Tram maps of Upper Silesia and delete this category?
--Auntof6 (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I was going to support the latter, but that category contains maps of all of Upper Silesia with the trams indicated, whereas all of these maps are of individual cities with the local trams indicated. Could we move to Category:City tram maps of Upper Silesia or Category:City maps of trams in Upper Silesia or something like that? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Those would work, too. I have no preference between the two. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Auntof6: nice catch! I support to Delete the nominated category and upmerge. Firstly, the category's name part <City tram maps/City maps of trams> is unique. Secondly, some of the these populated places are probably towns--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Upmerged. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Category:Minor third-party and independent campaigns in the United States presidential election, 2016
[edit]- Category:Minor third party campaigns in the United States presidential election, 2004
- Category:Minor third party campaigns in the United States presidential election, 2008
- Category:Minor third-party and independent campaigns in the United States presidential election, 2012
Seems to be over-diffused: Distinction between "minor" and "major" third-party/independent U.S. campaigns is fuzzy and irrelevant to Commons. Closeapple (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm not sure we need the "third party" distinction at all here, so maybe the parent category could go, too. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Merge up to at least each's parent category (without "Minor"), per my own nomination: After the first president (George Washington), no third-party or independent candidate has ever won the U.S. presidency. In some years, the Libertarian and Green parties, and occasionally a couple others, have wider on-ballot access, but even that isn't a category distinction made on English Wikipedia. Simply put, there are no relevant file differences on Commons between different campaigns, and there aren't enough different campaigns to need two levels of diffusion into opinion-based second-tier "major third-party" and third-tier "minor third-party". All "third-party campaigns" are minor, if the distinction from major parties is made at all. --Closeapple (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Upmerged. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Neither the scope nor the object of this category is clear. Motacilla (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- We should probably be discussing this at Category:Church paintings. Category:Paintings in churches redirects to Category:Church paintings, so I'm going to take a wild guess and say these categories are for paintings in churches. I think the name of the redirect is clearer, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I added this category when I uploaded File:St Eilian's Church, Llaneilian, skeleton painting.jpg. After looking for a suitable category I created Category:Church paintings in Wales, following the example of the other subcategories of Category:Church paintings by country. I did not feel it necessary to specify the scope of the new category because I thought this was clearly inherited from Category:Church paintings. There were a few English images in Category:Church paintings so I moved them into Category:Church paintings in England, for consistency. As I see it now, any fresco in a church belongs in one of the subcategories of Category:Frescos in churches by country. If a painting is above or behind an altar it belongs in the subcategories of Category:Altar paintings by country. If the painting is neither a fresco nor an altar painting then it belongs in one of the subcategories of Category:Church paintings by country. I think it is clear that these categories are used for paintings located in churches, not for paintings of churches. I would not have designed it like this, and it needs documentation and maybe a total redesign. A complication is that it takes an expert to distinguish between frescos and paintings made a secco on dry plaster. I would make a distinction between murals attached to the church fabric, which may or may not be frescos; and paintings not attached to the fabric, such as framed oil paintings. I suggest that these issues are raised in Category talk:Church paintings Verbcatcher (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Your thoughts make sense to me, Verbcatcher. I've tagged Category:Church paintings and Category:Church paintings by country in the hope of bringing in additional comments. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Converted Church paintings a dab page and created Paintings in churches and Paintings of churches per COM:CAT's simplicity principle. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The official English name that is fortunately used consistently by the cemetery's administration is Vienna Central Cemetery. FDMS 4 19:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's fine. Gryffindor (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Mixed-language names are always a bit problematic, so I suggest to treat its official German language name Wiener Zentralfriedhof (see [4]) as a proper name and redirect both of the others to Category:Wiener Zentralfriedhof, or even the other way round as Florian said redirecting both to Category:Vienna Central Cemetery. --Achim (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- While I agree that Wiener Zentralfriedhof would be the correct German name, Vienna Central Cemetery (capitalised!) appears to be as official as Wiener Zentralfriedhof and therefore imo both should be treated as proper nouns. FDMS 4 10:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- As official, certainly not, as all laws and ordinances of Vienna (the only truly "official" sources) are certainly only written in German and not in English. But I don't disagree with the CfD, as COM:LP says that English names should be preferred where they exist. darkweasel94 12:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- While I agree that Wiener Zentralfriedhof would be the correct German name, Vienna Central Cemetery (capitalised!) appears to be as official as Wiener Zentralfriedhof and therefore imo both should be treated as proper nouns. FDMS 4 10:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Mixed-language names are always a bit problematic, so I suggest to treat its official German language name Wiener Zentralfriedhof (see [4]) as a proper name and redirect both of the others to Category:Wiener Zentralfriedhof, or even the other way round as Florian said redirecting both to Category:Vienna Central Cemetery. --Achim (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose the Name is Zentralfriedhof. We don't must translate all to english. --Ralf Roleček 23:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Zentralfriedhof is a proper noun, so we don't have to translate. --Häferl (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose COM:LP doesn't apply to proper names. Besides: a policy is not a strict rule, it says english names should be, not must be preferred. However, renaming the Cat Category:Wiener Zentralfriedhof could be considered, since this is the official name. -- Clemens 15:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- +1 Ja, Category:Wiener Zentralfriedhof würde mir auch wesentlich besser gefallen. --Häferl (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Dann sollten wir es so machen. Wenn es hier jemanden gibt, der sich damit auskennt, dann du. --Ralf Roleček 22:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Mit "dann du" meinst Du sicher den Clemens, oder? Ich mein, daß er "Wiener Zentralfriedhof" heißt, wissen wir beide, aber ich hab noch nie eine Kategorie verschoben. Liebe Grüße, --Häferl (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ich meine, daß du DIE Spezialistin für Wiener Friedhöfe bist. --Ralf Roleček 23:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ich zweifle an der These, daß jemand Spezialist für etwas wird, nur weil er viele (vielleicht die meisten) Fotos von etwas macht. Also wenn ich einen Herzchirurgen fotografisch begleite, würdest Du dich dann von mir am Herz operieren lassen? :D --Häferl (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Dann wärst du die Spezialistin für Fotos vom Herzchirurgen. Ich sag ja nicht, daß du Chefbestatterin in Wien bist ;) --Ralf Roleček 23:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ich zweifle an der These, daß jemand Spezialist für etwas wird, nur weil er viele (vielleicht die meisten) Fotos von etwas macht. Also wenn ich einen Herzchirurgen fotografisch begleite, würdest Du dich dann von mir am Herz operieren lassen? :D --Häferl (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ich meine, daß du DIE Spezialistin für Wiener Friedhöfe bist. --Ralf Roleček 23:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Mit "dann du" meinst Du sicher den Clemens, oder? Ich mein, daß er "Wiener Zentralfriedhof" heißt, wissen wir beide, aber ich hab noch nie eine Kategorie verschoben. Liebe Grüße, --Häferl (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Dann sollten wir es so machen. Wenn es hier jemanden gibt, der sich damit auskennt, dann du. --Ralf Roleček 22:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- +1 Ja, Category:Wiener Zentralfriedhof würde mir auch wesentlich besser gefallen. --Häferl (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear: This CFD is not a vote; COM:LP is very clear about such cases and "proper name" is not a catch-all excuse to use terms otherwise only used by German speakers. Involved users may not close CFDs with dissenting opinions. FDMS 4 10:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- COM:LP is indeed clear: it doesn't apply to proper names. Everything else is interpretation. And we are far from closing this discussion: we are discussing to move the Category to Category:Wiener Zentralfriedhof since this is the only official name that has so far been proven. But I can live with the present form as well, since mixed-language Catnames cannot always be avoided, albeit they are indeed a bit awkward. -- Clemens 22:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a broader problem with such a type of descriptive and translantable proper names. Which criteria should be considered?
- is the proper name oficially registered/codified, or is rather informal and a bit varying?
- is the subject (by its purpose, importance and activity) rather local, or rather worldwide/international? Do they use translated names at their official website etc.?
- is the locality of the subject multilingual?
- has the subject an established and widely used English name, or the English name is ad hoc translation?
- when an foreigner seek for the subject (in the map, on the internet, in reality), can be more successful with the original (local) name, or with the English name?
- is the English translation as unambiguous and understandable as the original name?
- is the name an element of the set of similar names in any parent category? Do exist parallel/analogous names in the category tree? Which variant prevails?
In boundary and too questionable cases, status quo should be preferred to the disputable change. I think, that applies also to our case. --ŠJů (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- I just noticed tne name of the gallery Zentralfriedhof Wien, that should be changed as well. --Achim (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Leaf-categories in Category:Cemeteries in Vienna all are named in German (except half of the very category under discussion). Names are constructed either Stadlauer Friedhof or Friedhof Stammersdorf-Ort, which gives us either Wiener Zentralfriedhof or Zentralfriedhof Wien as the target name. Acc. to discussion before, Wiener Zentralfriedhof should be preferred. It does not make much sense to change a single name of a series of names, just to make a point.
This is not a weird exception, if you look at leaf-categories of the following cities: Category:Cemeteries in Berlin (mostly German proper names), Category:Cemeteries in Paris by name and Category:Cemeteries in Brussels-Capital Region (French proper names), Category:Cemeteries in Munich (mostly German proper names, similar mixtures as here: Category:Munich Waldfriedhof, Category:Munich Westfriedhof, Category:Munich Nordfriedhof but also Category:Sendlinger Friedhof (München), Category:Neuer Südfriedhof (Munich)), Category:Cemeteries in Rome and Category:Cemeteries in Milan (Italian proper names), Category:Cemeteries_in_Brazil_by_city (Portugese proper names), Category:Cemeteries_in_Madrid (mostly Spanish proper names). Non-Latin languages of course use the latin character cemetery categories, fulfilling the need more to write in latin alphabet, than to avoid proper names (e.g. Category:Cemeteries in Moscow).
For Cemeteries in Austria (apart from Vienna) the situation is not that clear, but the most common naming schemes include Category:Friedhof Achau (121 occurences, German Friedhof with name of municipality or village), Category:Wiener Neustädter Friedhof (36 occ. (but mostly Vienna) ~ Wiener Zentralfriedhof), Category:Stadtfriedhof Schärding (35 occ. ~ Zentralfriedhof Wien; German proper name with name of municipality or village), similar Category:Alter Friedhof, Kitzbühel (14. occ), then followed by Category:Cemetery Weißkirchen in Steiermark (28 occ.; first occ of English cemetery in overall 370 different categories, mostly in Styria and mostly be me and Maclemo, so this is not an important argument). I just mention this here, but I think we should start an action to streamline category names for Austrian cemeteries in addtion to this Cfd.
My proposal, also to end this CfD, is Wiener Zentralfriedhof. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- As a proper name of more than national importance is the official German name Wiener Zentralfriedhof to use. Compare, for example, the German name of the category Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde. Even in the English Wikipedia the lemma has the German name and is not called Society of Friends of Music. -- Walter Anton (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Enwiki article is under the name en:Vienna Central Cemetery. Seems irrational not to use enwiki solution. However, opponents can try to convince enwiki users to rename the article--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Dieser Mischmasch mit Vienna ist ebenso überflüssig, wie schon mehrmals erwähnt, sollte die Kategorie Category:Wiener Zentralfriedhof heißen denn das ist nunmal der Name. --Ralf Roletschek 14:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: Category already moved long ago. --Bedivere (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)