Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/04
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive April 2017
This category has been renamed and all files associated with it have been transferred to the new category Kj1595 (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Kj1595 created the original category about a month ago, and is the only editor thus far. Moved to Category:Royal coats of arms of Albania. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
It is necessary to remove Nickel nitride (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Nominated by creator, not long after creation. @Nickel nitride: For fixing your own mistakes, there's no need of discussion. Next time just put {{Bad name|<good category name>}} on the problem category. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
It is necessary to remove Nickel nitride (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Nominated by creator, not long after creation. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
This category is empty. The sole image file it contained was transferred to a more suitable single category. Kj1595 (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Daphne Lantier 07:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
This category is empty. The sole image file it contained was transferred to a more suitable single category. Kj1595 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Daphne Lantier 07:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Empty category. Previously contained self-promotional content which has been deleted as being out of scope or for sourcing/copyright problems. Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
oberlausitz 94.222.159.227 16:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: nonsense cfd. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Any particular reason this category is using Dutch? Move to Category:Cordillera Central, Dominican Republic as per en:Cordillera Central, Dominican Republic. Themightyquill (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Support --Achim (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)- Support - we will probably find a lot more, Jos1950 has pottered a lot with the Dominican Republic categorization. Jcb (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Auntof6 (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:Cordillera Central, Dominican Republic via COM:CDC. --Achim (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
not anymore needed Capricorn4049 (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Revert and
Keep. Although the category is replaced with newly created category, Category:DJI drones, the term "drone" is avoided to use as a category name (See: Category:Drones).--Morio (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Or rename the category to Category:DJI radio controlled model helicopters to keep consistency of the category name with other categories.--Morio (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Renaming Category:DJI drones to Category:DJI radio controlled model helicopters is ok for me--Capricorn4049 (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Or rename the category to Category:DJI radio controlled model helicopters to keep consistency of the category name with other categories.--Morio (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
That looks like consensus to me. Thanks for discussing so nicely. Moved to Category:DJI radio-controlled model helicopters as per suggestion (plus gramatical fix). - Themightyquill (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
To be deleted - replaced by Ladby (Fyn) Beethoven9 (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Redirected. Convert it to disambig if necessary. --Achim (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
empty cat. MB298 (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
British Airways has never operated any CRJ700s. There is no chance for any files in this category. feminist (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Way out of my area of expertise, but a quick google search reveals at least a couple images that are claimed to be BA CRJ700s. [1] [2] Those are just identification errors? I'll trust your judgement. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete for now.There are CRJ700s which have been photographed in British Airways colors,but right now we don't have any such images on Commons that I found.We should not keep an empty category around waiting for images that may never come, but if images such as those found by Themightyquill (talk · contribs) are uploaded, the category would be valid for recreation. Josh (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)- @Joshbaumgartner and Feminist: Thanks. That's fine by me but File:Canadair CL-600-2C10 Regional Jet CRJ-701ER, British Airways (Maersk Air) AN0257606.jpg is perhaps misidentified then? Or CRJ-701 is something else entirely? Like I said, not my specialty. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have withdrawn my delete vote as the existence of this file requires this category to properly sort it. Josh (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner and Feminist: Thanks. That's fine by me but File:Canadair CL-600-2C10 Regional Jet CRJ-701ER, British Airways (Maersk Air) AN0257606.jpg is perhaps misidentified then? Or CRJ-701 is something else entirely? Like I said, not my specialty. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Because someone has already voted "delete" above it is too late to withdraw this request. A CRJ700 in BA colours should be included in this category even though it is operated by another airline. feminist (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. The image found by Themightyquill (talk · contribs) is absolutely a CRJ700 of British Airways and thus the category is valid and should be kept. Josh (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Closed as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Pohled 111 started creating generic categories named in Czech to put his photographs into. This "root" one means "Nature (zoology and botany)" and contains "Birds (ornithology)" "Fish (water vertebraes)" "European hedgehog" "trees and bushes (dendrology)" and others. I've notified the user on his talk page to not create such categories anymore and use existing english/latin categories. I will migrate the files to a new category "Nature in Pohled" (Pohled being a parent category and a municipality the user is from and where he took all the photographs) so that the categories are empty before deletion. TFerenczy (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Update: Child categories' photographs moved to respective categories and also to "Nature of Pohled", user Pohled 111 notified on his talk page.--TFerenczy (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @TFerenczy: I agree with the changes you made. If the Czech-named cats are empty and ready for deletion, you can tag each one with {{Empty page}} to get an admin to delete them. In fact, you could probably have handled this that way without starting this discussion at all. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Closing this; categories deleted. Thanks for the advice, @Auntof6: .--TFerenczy (talk)
This category is empty. The sole image file it contained was transferred to a more suitable single category. Kj1595 (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Category is not empty now. When it is, you can tag it with {{Empty page}} instead of discussing here. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's no longer empty, if it ever was. Did you want to move the image to Category:Coats of arms of bishops of Albania, which is currently empty? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yes. That would be best. To have it moved to Category:Coats of arms of bishops of Albania. There is no need to have this single category for only one file. The bishops category would be more inclusive. Kj1595 (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's no longer empty, if it ever was. Did you want to move the image to Category:Coats of arms of bishops of Albania, which is currently empty? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Useless, it is better to use Category:Cats of the Hospital Santo Antonio, Porto Ivanhercaz (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- You already moved the category, so what discussion does it need? If you'd like the redirected category deleted, tag it with {{Category renamed}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you Auntof6! I didn't know {{Category renamed}}. I will consider it in the future. Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Closed - cat deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It's "smallpox", not "small box". And we already have Category:Smallpox vaccine. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Weird, especially when you look at how it's categorized. In any case, it's empty now, so I tagged it with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Daphne Lantier 20:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Puente Jaime Dovali (which itself needs renaming and will be listed here for that purpose - I have moved the images in this category into that one). This category also misidentifies the highway carried by the bridge. Raymie (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete If it has a name, let's use it. No need to keep a redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The correct name of the bridge is the Puente Ing. Antonio Dovalí Jaime (though we may want to render it as the Antonio Dovalí Jaime Bridge to put it in English). Raymie (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support I'm fine with the full Spanish name, if that's the official name. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Redirected to Category:Puente Ing. Antonio Dovalí Jaime - Themightyquill (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Misspelling - should be Alvarado, not Alavardo. Raymie (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing, Raymie. I'd propose a move to Category:Alvarado Bridge, Papaloapan. It's a disambiguation by location, not by type. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Broken category redirect. Categories are not created for sub-types of aircraft operated by a specific airline at a specific airport. feminist (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with you. I must have created this category by mistake. ––Apalsola t • c 13:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Paul Hermans: You seem to feel the category should be at Category:Wijdenaardbrug (Gent) (currently redirected) not Category:Wijngaardbrug (Gent). Would you care to explain why? Please don't blank redirects and leave empty categories when you don't like the way things are organized. Themightyquill (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
See article on the Dutch wikipedia: nl:Wijdenaardbrug: Multiple bridges have been sequentially constructed on the same site. the first bridges, including the one built in 1885, was called Wijngaardbrug. The last bridge, built in 2007, is called Wijdenaardbrug. Donarreiskoffer (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the present situation be reflected on commons? The pictures are all of the bridge built in 2007 and should bear the name of the 2007 bridge as well as the category's name.Paul Hermans (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oei, ik heb zonet informatie toegevoegd aan de Category. Reverten of voorlopig laten staan? Lotje (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Lotje: Thanks but it's fine. I don't think it impacts the discussion here. Do you have any thoughts on what the category should be called? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: why not put the former name between brackets with the redirects? Category:Wijdenaardbrug (Wijngaardbrug) Gent
Lotje (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: why not put the former name between brackets with the redirects? Category:Wijdenaardbrug (Wijngaardbrug) Gent
- @Lotje: Thanks but it's fine. I don't think it impacts the discussion here. Do you have any thoughts on what the category should be called? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oei, ik heb zonet informatie toegevoegd aan de Category. Reverten of voorlopig laten staan? Lotje (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
ResolvedThe category is now renamed to the actual name the bridge has. Romaine (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Category moved to Category:Wijdenaardbrug (Gent) by Romaine. Please see Commons:Categories for discussion on how to close discussions. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense/typo. Could be "people looking at food", but that seems nitpicky and Category:People with food has room for more images. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think so good, too. Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Files moved to Category:People with food, and category deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Empty category. ~ Rob13Talk 21:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Tagged with {{Empty page}}, didn't really need discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
In der Kat befindet sich ein Schreibfehler, sorry, daher bitte löschen! Biberbaer (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've tagged this with {{Bad name}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Category created in error, as Category:Oxford park and ride already exists. Motacilla (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Oxford park and ride. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate exists, nominated by uploader Subhashish Panigrahi (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have flagged it with {{Bad name}}. @Psubhashish: FYI, in cases like this, you can just use the {{Bad name}} template instead of starting a discussion here. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer Auntof6, will do that in the the future. --Subhashish Panigrahi (talk)
Closing -- cat has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Meaningless. Should be deleted. E4024 (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've tagged it as an empty page. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Empty cat should be deleted. The creator of this cat and similars, not because they are wrong but because we cannot have a cat for every image, should be "warned" by an admin. No I'm not proposing them to be blocked, but simply warned by someone who has more authority than a simple contributor (to whom they don't listen). E4024 (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've tagged it as an empty page. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Speedy delete requested. Category created in error with an obvious mistake in its name. Was intended to be Category:Observation Tower (San Germán, Puerto Rico). Sorry. — Ipoellet (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've flagged it with {{Bad name}}, so an admin will delete it. @Ipoellet: , for future reference, this kind of thing can be handled with the bad name template without starting a discussion here. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Closing -- cat has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
There are no pages or files in this category. Pitpisit (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- No longer empty. I added two files from a parent category that fit. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Closing -- cat is no longer empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
empty category, no images to add for this event from last year Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
empty category, no Wiki Project Med events to be added... Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
empty category, no Wiki Project Med events to be added... Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
empty category, no Wiki Project Med events to be added... Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
empty category, no Wiki Project Med events to be added... Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Bitte um Löschung, da mit fehlerhafter Schreibweise ("Chapels" groß geschrieben) angelegt und nirgends verwendet Zugroaster (talk) 07:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Redundant with Category:Interiors of chapels in Landkreis Dachau. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
not anymore needed Capricorn4049 (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Daphne Lantier 03:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
not anymore needed Capricorn4049 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Daphne Lantier 03:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
not anymore needed Capricorn4049 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Daphne Lantier 03:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Typo; file moved to DAF CF category. Peter James (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Daphne Lantier 03:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
A category containing one photo of a non-notable individual; Wikipedia article deleted long ago for lack of notability. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- And it also contains a gallery which contains only that same photo! Delete, please! --Auntof6 (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Daphne Lantier 03:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Shoelaces, I guess? El Grafo (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Not a term used in English, as far as I know (or as far as a quick google search tells me). - Themightyquill (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Daphne Lantier 03:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that there was a category for this topic - effectively - already at "Wikimedia meetups in 2017". I don't think this category is needed. Blythwood (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Daphne Lantier 03:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Empty category, also wrongly created by user's name. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Daphne Lantier 03:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Should be renamed to "Grenke Chess Classic 2015" Steak (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Das finde ich gut, denn dann hätten wir kein Problem mit 2017. --GFHund (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ich setzte die Bilder aus der Kategorie Chess Classic Baden-Baden nach Grenke Chess Classic 2015 um. Das heißt, die alte Category kann gelöscht werden. --GFHund (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Habe Schnelllöschantrag gestellt. Steak (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ich setzte die Bilder aus der Kategorie Chess Classic Baden-Baden nach Grenke Chess Classic 2015 um. Das heißt, die alte Category kann gelöscht werden. --GFHund (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted by Jcb. --Daphne Lantier 03:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Insufficient use being made of the category (There's only one image in the category and all images of ASD vehicles on the net aren't released under a CC license so it's highly unlikely this will ever grow beyond 2 images any time soon), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Daphne Lantier 03:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Empty Category Outlookxp (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann - Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect name. New category with correct name has been created. Bodhisattwa (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Bodhisattwa: Then please tag this category with {{Bad name}}, indicating the correctly-named category. For future reference, cases like this can be handled with {{Bad name}} instead of being discussed here. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: , ok, thanks for the right direction. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Bodhisattwa: Wait, Category:Dutch Memorial Monument of Susanna Anna Maria? Why are we capitalizing memorial or monument? And we say monuments for people not of people, don't we? This fairly detailed page suggests that it's a tomb, not a memorial monument, and that the epitaph describes her has "Susanna Anna Maria Yeats". I would suggest a move to Category:Tomb of Susanna Anna Maria Yeats. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: , Dutch Memorial Monument of Susanna Anna Maria is the official name as displayed by Archaeological Survey of India (N-WB-65) board in front of the monument. Its a tomb, no doubt, but it has a name. I will check about the capital letters and get back soon. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: , Here is the ASI display board showing the name of the monument. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: , Dutch Memorial Monument of Susanna Anna Maria is the official name as displayed by Archaeological Survey of India (N-WB-65) board in front of the monument. Its a tomb, no doubt, but it has a name. I will check about the capital letters and get back soon. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Good enough for me. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
This category is empty and may be deleted Kj1595 (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: Kj1595 has moved the images to Category:Medieval coats of arms of Albania. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- I can safely say that none of those are medieval coats of arms.--Zoupan (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Zoupan: Can you please elaborate? Can you think of an alternative name in English that would be accurate? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: empty cat. --JuTa 01:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Absurd, even racist category. Are we trying to prove that more Christians than others got Nobel? How do we know who is a Christian? A nuclear scientist -for example- will define himself/herself with a religion? Does s/he look for God in the protons, neutrons etc? Let's delete this cat. E4024 (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support. In other categories where we intersect a person's religion with another aspect (such as occupation), the other aspect is religion-related (for example, Christian clergy). --Auntof6 (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Totally unrelated intersection category. About as useless as Category:Nobel laureates with green eyes. - Themightyquill (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 01:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
moved everything to Category:Wikipedia meetups at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, a more inclusive name for this smaller event series... Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 01:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Inappropriate categorization of people, and generally ridiculous idea for a category. (I should know—I created this for some reason, years ago, and was shocked to see it still existed.) The Honorable (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Certainly, we wouldn't have a category for all people who have had plastic surgery or people whose teeth have been straightened with braces. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 01:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Originally created without categories. These categories related to a pre-punk musical group from Los Angeles were added later by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 but I can find no reference to such a group. ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, can you please explain? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Done: no response -- deleted. Daphne Lantier 01:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
already covered by Category:BMW 1 Series , Category:BMW E87 and Category:BMW F20 Steinfeld-feld (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Further research brings up that we should save up this category for the "Neue Klasse" BMW 1600 Type 116. But noone used it the right way until now. Steinfeld-feld (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
OK Closing the discussion by now, new purpose of the category are BMW 1600 (Type: 116) of the BMW New Class. --Steinfeld-feld (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This category is empty and may be deleted Kj1595 (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Related CFD: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/04/Category:Coats of arms of Communes of Albania
Comment: It is only now empty, but it was populated recently. In fact it was replaced by Category:County seals of Albania. Is this change ok (seal vs. coat of arms)? XXN, 18:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- The category is currently in Category:Government coats of arms of Albania. It could be also in Category:Coats of arms of territorial entities. Is there some reason that "Seals" is prefereable to "Coats of arms" here, Kj1595? By the way, this is a clear case where nominating something as "empty" is misleading, when you and XXN have been going back and forth on the category with altogether different reasons. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- XXN Themightyquill Seal is the appropriate word to use to logos of counties, municipalities and other government agencies. Coat of arms is something more commonly associated with old history, royal insignia etc. I would prefer Seal to remain as the name under those specific categories. Kj1595 (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Kj1595: nevertheless these are coats of arms. As per Wikipedia, the Albanian stema=coat of arms, en:Coat of arms is currently linked with sq:Stema (and the almost homonymous it:Stemma and ro:Stemă). XXN, 16:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- XXN Themightyquill Seal is the appropriate word to use to logos of counties, municipalities and other government agencies. Coat of arms is something more commonly associated with old history, royal insignia etc. I would prefer Seal to remain as the name under those specific categories. Kj1595 (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- The category is currently in Category:Government coats of arms of Albania. It could be also in Category:Coats of arms of territorial entities. Is there some reason that "Seals" is prefereable to "Coats of arms" here, Kj1595? By the way, this is a clear case where nominating something as "empty" is misleading, when you and XXN have been going back and forth on the category with altogether different reasons. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I can see the only categories using "seals" like that is Category:State seals of the United States and Category:Provincial seals of Thailand which are all round, like seals. Maybe "emblems" would work better? Like Category:Emblems of provinces and territories of Vietnam? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- @XXN: , @Themightyquill: I think emblem is a better word but if it can be nested under the current category "Government coat of arms of Albania" that would be great. Kj1595 (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- @XXN: , @Themightyquill: Or actually under the category "Government emblems of Albania". Kj1595 (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- @XXN: , @Themightyquill: I think emblem is a better word but if it can be nested under the current category "Government coat of arms of Albania" that would be great. Kj1595 (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Moved both to Category:County emblems of Albania inside new category Category:Government emblems of Albania. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Seems quite unnecessary. We should better delete it. E4024 (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Category:Culture of Istanbul by genre too. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Themightyquill, let's delete both cats. --E4024 (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Clear precedent: Category:Categories of Paris by genre see... -Pivox (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Firstly, Pivox, please stop creating additional categories of this kind while this discussion is ongoing. Second, I'm adding Category:Categories of Paris by genre to this discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have no problems with Category:Concerts in Paris by genre because Category:Concerts by genre exists, and music is something that is often sub-categorized by genre in common speech. Category:Culture of Paris by genre is more troubling, because Category:Culture by genre doesn't exist, and because, to my knowledge, culture isn't usually sub-categorized by genre in common speech. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Of course we will also Delete Category:Culture of Ankara by genre. --E4024 (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Delete all culture-by-genre cats, because culture is not categorized by genre -- "entertainment" and "theatres" are not genres, and can go directly under culture. Then delete any "categories of <place> by genre" that have fewer than two cats left. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
No clear arguments given for keeping. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
This category was originally created for a Resort in Bulgaria called "Sunny Day". This category should better be merged into Category:Blue sky, because whether a day is sunny is a very subjective assessment. Tolomm (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Tolomm: What happened to the images of the resort? Images of sunny weather can be moved to Category:Sunny weather. If images of the resort are gone, I would suggest deleting this category rather than redirecting. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Tolomm and Themightyquill: The category was created by the Bulgarian editor Eola in 2009. The only one image of the Bulgarian resort Слънчев ден I found is File:Sunny Day, Varna.jpg, uploaded in 2012. The Bulgarian editor Elkost removed it from the category Category:Sunny Day on 2016-06-23 and added it to Category:Hotels in Constantine & Helena etc. instead. Elkost was also who changed the category Category:Sunny Day from the original meaning to the new one.
- "Sunny Day" as a proper name (with a capitalized "D") is probably a nonsense, not an established term for any "part of the day" as categorized by Elkost. I changed the category page to a disambiguation. Proper names of Bulgarian hotels or resorts should be not ad hoc translated but only transliterated from the Bulgarian Cyrilic. --ŠJů (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- That works for me. @Tolomm: Are we okay to close discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Sunny Day" as a proper name (with a capitalized "D") is probably a nonsense, not an established term for any "part of the day" as categorized by Elkost. I changed the category page to a disambiguation. Proper names of Bulgarian hotels or resorts should be not ad hoc translated but only transliterated from the Bulgarian Cyrilic. --ŠJů (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete : Redundant with Sunny weather category. Pierre cb (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Converted to disambig page by ŠJů. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Tailor-made for one user. Not justified. E4024 (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Clear precedent: Template:User from Hamburg.. Ankara, London, Islamabad... see... -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pivox (talk • contribs) 22:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- How is a template that's used by multiple users a precedent for a single-user category? However... --Auntof6 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see a problem with a "users from" category having only one entry. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I can't seen any potential for harm here. It's not in the regular commons categorization tree, so who cares? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I care Themightyquill. A cat is for categorizing things; for easy reference to the Turkish-speaking user, it is called "tasnif" in Turkish, i.e. "classification". To make a "class" you need more members. On the other hand a cat is not like a userpage babel box or whatever they are called, as I have never used any. Those things are "voluntary". A cat is not. This is why we discuss cats here and try o decide in consensus. What if a user from Ankara or elsewhere is added in this cat without wanting to be put in cats? Are we going to make IP checks for users in those cats? What if someone invents "Category:Fascist users" or something similar and pile people inside? I'm not sure if you guys understand the issue. If you do, I don't. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- These are voluntary. No one should be adding any categories to anyone else's user page, just to their own. I assume we accept location on good faith, as we accept most things on good faith. If someone lies about being from Ankara, it really doesn't disrupt the project anyway, so as I said, no potential for harm. There may be only one user in Ankara right now, but surely there are more users from Ankara. Perhaps they will see this and add themselves. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps not. --E4024 (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
No clear argument for policing user categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
This cat should be deleted. Read my further arguments below, please. E4024 (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- A certain user carved out this cat from Category:Dondurma. We use/d category "dondurma" (ice cream in Turkish language) for a certain type of dondurma/ice cream made in Turkey and called "Maraş dondurması", "dövme dondurma" or with other similar names. Now we separated, arbitrarily, some pictures in that cat and invented a new cat. Firstly, all the ice creams in these cats should belong to one and only same cat. This is the "basic Commons in English language". We cannot have a cat for the Turkish equivalent of "ice cream" under a separate cat. Ice cream is ice cream everywhere. The word "dondurma" we use in some WPs for a special type of Turkish dondurma, in languages which are not Turkish, and its commons category is also called Category:Dondurma. (We may always change these names, that is another issue.) On the other hand, ice cream is ice cream everywhere -yes I repeat myself- and in Turkish WP we use the Category:Ice cream for the article Dondurma as "dondurma" means "ice cream". (I continue to repeat myself for one user to make them understand things better.) Whereas, in TR:VP -and elsewhere- we use Category:Dondurma for what they call Maraş dövme dondurması. Somewhere else the inventor of this new categorization has been very smoothly warned by User:Themightyquill not to continue. As I see that they do continue, I think time is coming -if not has come yet- to give a more precise admin warning to the said user to please "stop", at this area, and concentrate on making more useful contributions. --E4024 (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- @E4024: Your comments on another user's behaviour are not relevant to this discussion. There's nothing to indicate this category was created in bad faith. I didn't warn Pivox in that other discussion, I merely asked, and I wasn't an admin when I did so.
- That said, I agree with you that a) regular ice-cream in Turkey should not be categorized under Dondurma, and b) that really awesome special Turkish icecream deserves a special category. I know that English speakers are likely to refer to it as just dondurma, but using Category:Dondurma might continue to confuse Turkish commons users as well as any bots that are simply applying the category. I'd suggest we use only Category:Maraş dondurma as the best middle ground and delete Category:Dondurma. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with your proposal of solution, as almost always I do with your suggestions. Relevant or not, my comments stopped them a couple of days from inventing categories without respecting other people's work. I hope they used this time to take some pics to upload here. On the other hand, I never thought they acted in bad faith anywhere in Commons. (Oh, I commented on another user's behaviour again, sorry... :) --E4024 (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted Category:Dondurma. Ice cream other than "Maraş dondurma" moved to Category:Ice cream in Turkey. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Please delete. Not a necessary category, as the ship is identical with USS Arkansas. Cosal (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. The usual way of handling this is to have separate categories for multiple names. For more explanation, see the notes at Category:Ships by name. I've moved the one image of the Ozark to this cat, and adjusted the cats accordingly. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Clear reasons for keeping. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Unnecessary and wrong categorization. Should better be deleted. E4024 (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep see Pivox (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Right. We should also Delete Category:Categories of Istanbul by genre. --E4024 (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Culture of Ankara and Delete. Are 'Theatres' really a genre anyway?! Sionk (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Of course. Delete that one too. --E4024 (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/04/Category:Categories of Istanbul by genre. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Metrojet is the name of three different airlines, and all should have the country included to avoid confusion:
- Category:Metrojet -> Category:Metrojet (Hong Kong)
- Category:MetroJet -> Category:MetroJet (United States)
- no change required -> Category:Metrojet (Russia)
--Josh (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes please. No one should be required to know the specific capitalization of the different airlines to figure out which is which. After moving, create a disambig page at Category:Metrojet and delete Category:MetroJet. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support per User:Themightyquill. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Categories moved, disambiguated and deleted as per above. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Move to Category:Art approved by the Nazi regime ? Most of the sub-categories are artists, but there are no artistic styles as sub-categories at all. Themightyquill (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
redundant to Category:Textiles gathering boxes, categories should be merged together Zaccarias (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed, though I'm not sure which way to merge. Category:Textiles gathering boxes is certainly older, but I would never have guessed its purpose from that title. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- In my opinion I would merge this category into Category:Textiles gathering boxes. Of course you are right that you can't guess by it's name that they are also for shoes. But in my area they are called clothing gathering boxes (in german language) and shoes are also collected. Due to the fact, that such boxes are placed in many different countries, in support of many different organizations, some may also collect shoes and some may not. So I think it's quite impossible to distinguish. Unless there are no boxes only for collecting shoes I wouldn't use such a category name.--Zaccarias (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- I wonder if collection or donation rather than gathering would be clearer and/or more commonly used in English? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Collection sounds nice. I would prefer that. At least in my country they are called Collecting boxes. --Zaccarias (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, so I'd suggest a move to Category:Textile collection boxes. We can leave redirects though. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Collection sounds nice. I would prefer that. At least in my country they are called Collecting boxes. --Zaccarias (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- No further discussion, it seems. @Ruthven: Can you please help adding these to commons delinker? There are quite a lot of sub-categories in Category:Textiles gathering boxes? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Are you sure that we don't offend any shoemaker if we do so? ;-) --Ruthven (msg) 08:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:Textiles collection boxes, leaving a redirect from Category:Textiles gathering boxes. Ruthven (msg) 10:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Category:Saint George by Maderno in Bratislava & Category:Statue of Saint George and the Dragon in Primate's Palace, Bratislava show two quite similar statues / fountains. Likely they are only one single fountain. Can somebody check and eventually merge? Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Pe-Jo: After being notified of this discussion, you've moved all the images to Category:Saint George by Maderno in Bratislava without comment. It seems you created both the categories? Perhaps you'd like to mention here which category you prefer and why, so that a decision can be made? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: , Sorry , please redirect Category:Statue of Saint George and the Dragon in Primate's Palace, Bratislava to Category:Saint George by Maderno in Bratislava. First place of this statue was not in Primate's Palace, Bratislava also in the Category:Archepiscopal Summer Palace (Bratislava). Here is the replica of this statue File:Bratislava Sv. Juraj s drakom Urad vlady Umely kamen.jpg. Thanks Pe-Jo (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Pe-Jo: Then Category:Saint George by Maderno in Bratislava shouldn't be in Category:Sculptures of Primate's Palace, Bratislava. We could keep Category:Statue of Saint George and the Dragon in Primate's Palace, Bratislava as a sub-category of Category:Saint George by Maderno in Bratislava, just for pictures of the statue at the Primate's Palace? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
IMHO it is the same object in different locations and it is not worth the complexity created by cross cutting the object (the statue) with the location (the palace). Such complexity is handled better by a sound textual description. BTW, the other image File:Bratislava Sv. Juraj s drakom Urad vlady Umely kamen.jpg just shows a copy. We could remove Category:Saint George by Maderno in Bratislava from Category:Sculptures of Primate's Palace, Bratislava, but move it to Category:Primate's Palace, Bratislava or Category:Sculptures of Primate's Palace, Bratislava. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
As there are no more comments, I'll resolve this as Done --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Is this category useful and the naming correct? I didn't want to use "Workplaces" instead, because I don't mean different occupations. Please check before adding more categories to it. Zaccarias (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- The current name would mean files depicting work (for example, images, audio, or video of work being done), grouped by where it is being done. If this is what you intended, then the subcats are probably wrong -- they should be along the lines of "Work being done at construction sites". If what you intended was to show places where work is done, then "Workplaces" would be better (it doesn't imply anything about occupations). --Auntof6 (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have ment work environments, maybe Category:Work by facility or Category:Work by environment would be better then. The reason for my creaton was, due to Category:Offices and Category:Studios were listed in Category:Work, which was then renamed by someone else to Category:Work (activity). But due to the fact, that someone could work everywhere, I wonder if such a category is useful at all. Maybe there should be one defined to contain only man created facilities such as rooms, yards, halls including facilities in vehicles such as aircraft cockpits (but also large cruise ships) and so on. --Zaccarias (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- It sounds like it doesn't need a name that includes the word by. It seems that this category is for places where work is done, whether or not the files actually show the work. (For example, a construction site where all the workers have left for the day is still a place where work is done.) A category for that could be called workplaces, places where work is done, or something similar. Categories named Category:Work by facility or Category:Work by environment would be to show the work, not the place. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have ment work environments, maybe Category:Work by facility or Category:Work by environment would be better then. The reason for my creaton was, due to Category:Offices and Category:Studios were listed in Category:Work, which was then renamed by someone else to Category:Work (activity). But due to the fact, that someone could work everywhere, I wonder if such a category is useful at all. Maybe there should be one defined to contain only man created facilities such as rooms, yards, halls including facilities in vehicles such as aircraft cockpits (but also large cruise ships) and so on. --Zaccarias (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Zaccarias and Auntof6: Category:Places of work? Category:Workplaces by type? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Places or work or Workplaces would work (no pun intended!). Workplaces by type... I don't think so; I would expect a category with that name to contain subcats like science workplaces, education workplaces, industry workplaces, clerical workplaces, etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Proposal: Category:Workplaces. Considering the arguments here. In addition I've checked the Cambridge & Oxford Online dictionaries. "Workplaces" is right according to these. see: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/workplace?fallbackFrom=english-german&q=Workplace & https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/workplace --Zaccarias (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Places or work or Workplaces would work (no pun intended!). Workplaces by type... I don't think so; I would expect a category with that name to contain subcats like science workplaces, education workplaces, industry workplaces, clerical workplaces, etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Category name is changed to Category:Workplaces as per conclusion of the discussion. --Zaccarias (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Categories of railway lines in China
[edit]Sorry for changing en dash "–" to hyphen "-" in names of some categories about Chinese railway lines by mistake. Now I have checked those categories and I think it's need to rename these categories with en dash.
- Category:Beijing-Harbin Railway to Category:Beijing–Harbin Railway
- Category:Fuyu-Xilinji Railway to Category:Fuyu–Xilinji Railway
- Category:Harbin-Manzhouli Railway to Category:Harbin–Manzhouli Railway
- Category:Harbin-Suifenhe Railway to Category:Harbin–Suifenhe Railway
- Category:Siping-Qiqihar Railway to Category:Siping–Qiqihar Railway
- Category:Jilin-Shulan Railway to Category:Jilin–Shulan Railway
- Category:Meihekou-Ji'an Railway to Category:Meihekou–Ji'an Railway
- Category:Shenyang-Jilin Railway to Category:Shenyang–Jilin Railway
- Category:Dandong-Dalian Intercity Railway to Category:Dandong–Dalian Intercity Railway
- Category:Jinzhou-Chengde Railway to Category:Jinzhou–Chengde Railway
- Category:Shenyang-Dalian Railway to Category:Shenyang–Dalian Railway
- Category:Shenyang-Shanhaiguan Railway to Category:Shenyang–Shanhaiguan Railway
- Category:Tianjin-Baoding Railway to Category:Tianjin–Baoding Railway
- Category:Beijing-Hong Kong High-Speed Railway to Category:Beijing–Hong Kong High-Speed Railway
Thanks for you help.--そらみみ (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion that ease of use should come first before strict rules of punctuation and most people don't have an "en dash" on their keyboards. But as you can see from the long list of related discussions I've linked to above, various people have different opinions. Perhaps I should bring this to the village pump for outside discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for being late. Thanks a lot for your opinion. As there are many other categories about railway lines in China use "en dash", I think they must be the same at least in cases about China railways. Maybe person who created those categories thought that "en dash" and "hyphen" have different meanings.--そらみみ (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, そらみみ. I see now that Category:Railway lines in China has a mix of both. Consistency is definitely a worthy goal, so our choice is to move everything to hyphens or everything to en-dashes. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, Themightyquill. I think most of categories about railway lines in China use en-dashes, so moving to en-dashes is a better choice. 1 month has passed, should we wait for some other opinions?--そらみみ (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've just started a discussion at the Village pump (May 16) so hopefully that will bring additional thoughts on the topic. At this point, I think it makes sense to come to a general rule, rather than discussing this issue again and again, and reaching different decisions based on who happens to be paying attention to an individual CfD. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I see, Themightyquill.--そらみみ (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Given the official policy stated at Commons:Categories -- "Basic English characters (ISO/IEC 646) are preferred over national variants or extension character sets (for instance, 'straight' apostrophes over 'curly'), where reasonable." -- I would propose that we move all categories so that they use a minus sign instead of an en-dash. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. This is a important information. I think those rename requests by myself should be withdrawn.--そらみみ (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- DoneSorry for being late. I have moved all categories of Chinese railway lines from en-dash to hyphen.--そらみみ (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
All categories moved from en-dash to hyphen by そらみみ. Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I prefer "İzmir", but all similar cats (i.e. "Izmir", "Deaths in Izmir", "People of Izmir" and "People of Izmir Province") are under "Izmir". Therefore we should move this cat. E4024 (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Since the English wikipedia article is at en:İzmir and that's the official name of the city, I can't see why we're currently using "Izmir". Redirects should stay in place, of course. I've tagged some of the parent categories to seek further input. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support using İzmir. If the convention for sorting is like Wikipedia, where characters with diacritics are replaced with non-diacritics, then appropriate sort keys should be added where needed. (I've never been sure if Commons does that with sort keys.) --Auntof6 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Do whichever but do something please. There are cats with both spellings and this is not acceptable. --E4024 (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
No objections in months. Moving everything to İzmir. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Is this a prank? SVTCobra (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- At least near one. Uncited contentious views, disguised as a Commons category with exactly one descendant. I say delete, probably copy the parent cats here to be parents of the subcat. - Jmabel ! talk 23:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, along with Category:People United Means Action. Needless category levels - just upmerge as Jmabel has suggested. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Lots of images and linked to referenced wikipedia article. Kept as Category:P.U.M.A. movement because of the two different explanations of the acronym. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete Category:Saab 340 of American Airlines.
- There have not been Saab 340 aircraft in American Airlines colors, it is/was operated in American Eagle colors. The three images in this cat are of Category:N304AE (aircraft) and have been categorized correctly. --Josh (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
London may deserve such a cat. But I have my doubts about Ankara and one other city, Ljubljana. E4024 (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Also: Category:History of buildings in Ljubljana. Well, after a second look, maybe not... --E4024 (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, the Ljubljana category has more purpose. This Ankara category is just an unnecessary extra level. It's also in Category:Categories of Ankara by year which is also an unnecessary extra level. Delete them both. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
"Trump Air" is not an airline, it's not the name of anything official. It could be moved to Category:Aircraft of the Trump Organization or something similar. 9M-LNZ (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support: These are his personal aircraft, so I recommend Category:Aircraft of Donald Trump. Josh (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- @9M-LNZ: Are you okay with Josh's suggestion of Category:Aircraft of Donald Trump ? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Aircraft of Donald Trump.
Duplicate of Category:Armenian Catholic Pastoral Care, Budapest Tobias1984 (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- On the one hand the church itself (building) is not the same as the pastoral care (parish activity), so it's rather a matter of how the category should be named. I have to admit that I did not know of the existence of the pastoral-care-category when I created the church-category that was proposed by Tobias. I would have no problem to have the church category deleted. --Gereon K. (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Merge into Category:Armenian Catholic church in Budapest with a lower-case c as the topic is a single church, not the w:Armenian Catholic Church as a whole. I am not sure what "Pastoral Care" is supposed to mean, it is probably a poor translation of a Hungarian word. @Gereon K.: would you agree with the target name? Place Clichy 13:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Fine by mye. But Tobias1984 would be the one to ask. --Gereon K. (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ping @Tobias1984: --Gereon K. (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Place Clichy: Sounds good. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Merged and renamed to Category:Armenian Catholic church in Budapest per consensus. Place Clichy 15:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Sub categories are entirely out of standard // Les sous-catégories sont complètement hors standard. Please fix this problem.- Pạtạfisik 19:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Patafisik: Can you be more specific? I see that some of the subcategory names are in French instead of English. Is that what you mean? Are there other issues? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Also in French, they have wired and not-standard names ! Those sub-categories have wrong names + lack of categorisation (for esemple, cat of cemetery is not categorized in Category:Cemeteries_in_Isère but only in category:Villard-Bonnot). My best,--Pạtạfisik 07:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing these out, Patafisik. I'd propose the following moves:
- Category:Villard-Bonnot cimetiere > Category:Cemetery in Villard-Bonnot
- Category:Villard-Bonnot eglise Saint-Antoine > Category:Église Saint-Antoine, Villard-Bonnot
- Category:Villard-Bonnot fontaines > Category:Fountains in Villard-Bonnot
- Category:Villard-Bonnot monuments > Category:Monuments and memorials in Villard-Bonnot
Did I miss anything else? I guess Category:Brignoud and Category:Lancey are villages/towns, and should be categorized as such? The former is also categorized under Category:Froges, a different commune - I assume that's an error? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sailko has suggested Category:Église Saint-Antoine (Villard-Bonnot), but I'd prefer a comma. It's disambiguation by location, not by type. Although there are many exceptions, there's a general trend toward using a comma for disambiguation by location (e.g. Category:<street/object/place>, <location>) and using parentheses for disambiguation according to type, (e.g. Category:Birdman (rapper) vs Category:Birdman (film)). - Themightyquill (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Themightyquill and Sailko thanks for those suggestions. I like Category:Cemetery in Villard-Bonnot, Category:Fountains in Villard-Bonnot, Category:Monuments and memorials in Villard-Bonnot, I prefer Category:Église Saint-Antoine (Villard-Bonnot) (I've seen more frequently this kind of disambiguation in French categories ofd monuments) but sure I accept Category:Église Saint-Antoine, Villard-Bonnot.
- Lancey, Brignoud and Villard-Bonnot are hamlets / villages / lieux-dits of the commune named Villard-Bonnot (same name of the most important village in the commune). Brignoud is special : article in French says that it's a lieu-dit of communes Villard-Bonnot AND Froges (both of them), but no reference is available. --Pạtạfisik 08:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sailko has suggested Category:Église Saint-Antoine (Villard-Bonnot), but I'd prefer a comma. It's disambiguation by location, not by type. Although there are many exceptions, there's a general trend toward using a comma for disambiguation by location (e.g. Category:<street/object/place>, <location>) and using parentheses for disambiguation according to type, (e.g. Category:Birdman (rapper) vs Category:Birdman (film)). - Themightyquill (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Moved as above. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Is Category:Fliegerstaffel 11 redundant with much older Category:Staffel 11 ? Also Category:Fliegerstaffel 17 vs Category:Staffel 17, and Category:Fliegerstaffel 18 vs Category:Staffel 18. Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes Fliegerstaffel 11 , Fliegerstaffel 17 and Fliegerstaffel 18 are in some way redundandt with the older Staffel 11, Staffel 17, Staffel 18. But the Fliegerstaffel 11, 17, 18 contain more pictures than the old ones Staffel 11, 17 ,18. Fliegerstaffel is the german word used by the Swiss Airforce for Fightersquadron.. or you can Translate Fligerstaffel into Aviation squadron. The old Category Staffel 11 is not so clear.. Staffel can also be used for a for eg. Police squad.. Polizeistaffel 11 and so one. The offical Name for this Sqadrons of the Swiss Air Force is "Fliegerstaffel". Also we have no Articl named "Staffel 11" (1, .. 17, 18, 19,..) in wikipedia. But we have in the german language wikipedia [3], in the english language wikipedia [4], in Fandom Schweiz wikia [5] and in Fandom Military [6] Articel named Fliegerstaffel 1, ... Fliegerstaffel 11, Fliegrestaffel 17, Fliegerstaffel 18,.. So because of this I would say we should use "Fliegerstaffel" and not the old "Staffel". FFA P-16 (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Moved all to "Fliegerstaffel X" - Themightyquill (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Should this category and category Life rings be merged? Blue Elf (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- It looks that way. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Definitely merge. I note that the English wikipedia article is at en:Lifebuoys. That might help avoid excluding things like File:Thermopylae Clipper Lifering Tallinn 21 July 2013.JPG which aren't technically rings? Whichever way we go, we should create redirects from the long list of synonyms given in the wikipedia article. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest making Category:Lifebelts a dab, because the term is used for both life rings and life jackets. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Moved everything to Category:Life buoys and made Category:Lifebelts a disambiguation page. The new category could use some additional sorting. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Merge with Category:Watermelon snow ? Themightyquill (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Watermelon snow. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Taking to account that the term jails is distinct from prisons in a US context only, and that most other cases were duplicates waiting to be merged:
- Merged and redirected Category:Former jails with Category:Former prisons into Category:Former prisons and jails
- Merged and redirected Category:Former jails by country with Category:Former prisons by country into Category:Former prisons and jails by country
- Merged Category:Former jails in Sweden to Category:Former prisons in Sweden
- Moved the remainder of Category:Former jails to Category:Former jails in the United States
- Kept Category:Former jails in Georgia (U.S. state)
- Kept Category:Former jails in Iowa
- Kept Category:Former jails in Texas
- Kept Category:Former jails in Florida
Place Clichy 08:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be a later duplication of Category:Former prisons. I'd suggest a merger and redirect. --Sionk (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Similarly merge and redirect Category:Former jails in Sweden to Category:Former prisons in Sweden (and delete Category:Former jails by country)
- Similarly merge and redirect Category:Former jails in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Former prisons in Georgia (U.S. state)
- Similarly merge and redirect Category:Former jails in Iowa to Category:Former prisons in Iowa
- Similarly merge and redirect Category:Former jails in Texas to Category:Former prisons in Texas (though admittedly the former predates the latter)
- For similar reasons rename Category:Former jails in Florida to Category:Former prisons in Florida to match pre-existing category tree
- We have Category:Jail (which I just added to Category:Former jails), so we do seem to distinguish between prison and jail. Unless we do away with all the jail categories (which I would oppose), I think we should keep these. We should also create Category:Former jails in the United States, because there are several entries for it. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, according to the description on the Category:Jail, the term "prison" is not used in the USA. Therefore it begs the question why we have Category:Former prisons in the United States by state etc. One way or the other it could do with some reorganisation. Sionk (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- The term "prison" is definitely used in the United States. Jails and prisons have similar purposes, but on different scales. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Judging by the Prisons Wikipedia article prisons/jails/gaols are the same thing. Wikipedia categorises everything under "Prisons". Either a merger is required, or at the very worst an explanatory hatnote/inclusion criteria. Is 'prison' a more modern term? Sionk (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- As I read it, Wikipedia covers both in the same article and groups them in the same category, but doesn't say they are exactly the same. Both are used to detain people, but for different lengths of time and sometimes different kinds of reasons. Wiktionary makes a distinction. As used in the US, jails are usually smaller facilities, used for shorter incarcerations (sometimes for detaining people who haven't even been convicted of anything yet), and are under the jurisdiction of cities, towns, or counties. Prisons are bigger and used for longer stays and higher-risk inmates, and are usually either state or federal facilities. "County jail" is a meaningful term in the US, not only for facilities in current use, but for historical reasons. Some of them existed before there were any prisons in the country. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, generally in the United States in modern times, prisons is used for state or federal facilities that host felons or those convicted of serious offenses. Jails, at least in most states, refers to county or municipal facilities that hold those awaiting trial until they can post bond or are remanded without bond, and those convicted of misdemeanor or petty offenses who are sentenced to only days or weeks of incarceration. There are exceptions. Those accused of multiple felonies in several jurisdictions may be held in jails where they are being held for trial despite being previously sentenced to state prison. In the past, counties have been forced to host state prisoners due to overcrowded conditions in state prisons. Also, I don't presume to speak with authority about all fifty states and the other U.S. jurisdictions. The District of Columbia would be interesting since, due to its small size and lack of local jurisdictions within it, likely has a more unitary criminal justice system. Fortguy (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Fortguy is right. Jails can hold people awaiting trial in the United States who haven't or can't post bond (i.e. people who haven't been convicted), as well as those sentenced to jail time (usually a year or under for misdemeanors) rather than state or federal prison for felons. Kalbbes (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Do we need such an intersecting overcategorisation? Achim (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Category:SVG signatures of people from Poland has been unnecessarily sub-categorized, as its sub-categories have less than 50 images. Category:Signatures of physicians from Poland has two images plus this sub-category. Upmerge this and all the subcategories of Category:SVG signatures of people from Poland. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Closing as upmerge - the SVG filetype and the occupation of the person are totally unrelated. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
This category shall be deleted. It is empty and it is a duplicate of the category Category:Gösta Ekman d.ä. that already existed when this category was created. Svensson1 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- We should definitely have a disambiguation page here to distinguish between him and his son Category:Gösta Ekman d.y.. I would suggest we might use Category:Frans Gösta Viktor Ekman and Category:Hans Gösta Gustaf Ekman in lieu of English or Swedish initials for senior/junior. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Would that work for you, Svensson1 ? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have already changed the page "Category:Gösta Ekman" to a disambiguation page. If you want to change the name of the categories "Category:Gösta Ekman d.y." and "Category:Gösta Ekman d.ä.", you cannot use the two names you have suggested, because those names are never used about them. If the name of the categories shall be changed, it's maybe better to use the years when they where born and died to distinguish them. Svensson1 (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Would that work for you, Svensson1 ? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Gösta Ekman (1890–1938) and Category:Gösta Ekman (1939–2017). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
"France presidential sash" does not exist. See fr:Écharpe (symbole de fonction). Presidents often wear the sash of the Legion of Honour or other French or foreign orders, but there is no "presidential sash". BrightRaven (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'll have to take your word for it, but unless anyone objects, I'll support deletion. The category is empty so I assume the images have already been appropriately categorized. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Would there be any value in Category:Presidents of France wearing sashes? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
This is just an alternative name for Category:Triple reuptake inhibitors, so it should be redirected or deleted (not sure about policy here on Commons). ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, both categories were created by Vaccinationist, so maybe there was some intended logic behind having two categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Merged into Category:Serotonin-norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitors (which matches enwiki). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The brand was renamed to Stagecoach Gold in 2009. Peter James (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Move to Category:Stagecoach Gold and keep the redirect (Personally I've never heard of Stagecoach Gold being clled "Godline" however the EN article states it was so we should probably keep it). I won't move myself incase anyone here objects to the redirect being kept. –Davey2010Talk 00:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Move - The buses are branded 'Stagecoach Gold' both on the vehicles in the images and on publicity, so this is a more intuitive name for the category. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Moved. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Useless category that seems to have been created with a singular focus on the United States Democratic Party SVTCobra (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Serves no purpose, or only a bad one. Place Clichy 08:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Dle stránek římskokatolické farnosti Benešov jde o kostel svatého Vavřince (http://www.farnost-benesov.cz/kostely/kostel-sv-vavrince-v-okrouhlici/). Proto navrhuji přejmenovat kategorii na: Church of Saint Lawrence (Benešov) / According to the site of the Roman Catholic parishes of Benešov, this is the church of St. Lawrence (http://www.farnost-benesov.cz/kostely/kostel-sv-vavrince-v-okrouhlici/). Therefore, I propose to rename the category to: Church of Saint Lawrence (Benešov) Radek Linner (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
It is 7 years from the creation of the category. I dont remember, why I set it under the name of St. Martin.--Juandev (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Radek Linner and Juandev: : Kategorii jsem přejmenoval, ale příčinu chyby se mi zjistil nepodařilo. Pouze v článku cs:Matěj Špic je uvedeno, že v roce 1554 tento zvonař ulil zvon pro zvonici kostela sv. Martina v Okrouhlici.
- renamed and moved to Category:Church of Saint Lawrence in Okrouhlice (Benešov), the cause of the mistake not identified. --ŠJů (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Procedural close - previously deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
On Commons, we treat Australia as a country, with Oceania as its continent. Since the only entry in this category is for the country, I propose deleting this category and recategorizing the subcat appropriately. Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agree--JotaCartas (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- This might be one of the most amusingly useless categories I've ever seen, so I'm inclined to keep it for posterity, but we should really delete it. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I suppose the alternative would be to rename this to Category:Downtowns of Oceania by country, to match its sister categories, although I'm not crazy about having a single-entry category. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- That works. Category:Downtowns of New Zealand doesn't exist, but could easily be created. If we do just Category:Downtowns of Oceania we could include Category:Downtowns in Hawaii. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agree, maybe this option is better, and also categorize it in Category:Geography of Oceania by country --JotaCartas (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Emptied because Futurewiki created Category:Downtowns in Oceania by country. Deleting this one as redundant. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
This category is empty and may be deleted Kj1595 (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Related CFD: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/04/Category:Coats of arms of Counties of Albania
- Comment In fact this category was replaced by Category:Municipality seals of Albania. Is this change ok (seal vs. coat of arms; municipality vs. commune)? XXN, 18:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- See also the subcategories of Category:Coats of arms of municipalities by country. XXN, 19:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortuntely, Category:Populated places in Albania makes no mention of municipalities or communes. According to en:Municipalities of Albania, komunë/communes (rural municipalities) existed until 2015 when they were abolished. It seems to me that Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Albania would be the way to go, unless there's some reason to use "seals" instead of the standard "coats of arms." If there's a desire to separate out the old communes, they could be placed in a subcategory like Category:Coats of arms of communes of Albania or Category:Coats of arms of former municipalities of Albania. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- As per discussion elswhere, the vast majority of these are coats of arms, so I don't see why seals is better. Emblems might work as a neutral alternative? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Municipality emblems of Albania. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
This category is empty and may be deleted Kj1595 (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Kj1595: Please stop creating new categories, moving all the files from an old category, then asking for deletion as empty. If you see a category that should be moved, either nominated it for discussion before moving, or (if it's noncontroversial, move it yourself with the move tab. In this case, I support the move to Category:Cabinet seals of Albania. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't create that category though. I am simply trying to organize all the subcategories the right way Kj1595 (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I think this can be speedied, because there exists Category:Ministries of Albania (a preferred title). Or a category redirect is needed? --XXN, 10:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Kj1595: Maybe I've misunderstood something. You created Category:Cabinet seals of Albania, did you not? And you emptied Category:Albanian Ministries by moving everything to Category:Cabinet seals of Albania, did you not? I agree completely with your logic that the category should be deleted, but the category should have been moved to Category:Cabinet seals of Albania rather than emptied. If it's not a controversial move, you can simply use the "Move" tab to move it, and then use {{bad name|<proper name>}} on the bad category to request a speedy delete (or leave it as a redirect if that would be useful). If it is a controversial move, please nominate it with a clear reason and wait for a resolution before emptying it. Don't nominate it here, asking it to be deleted because it's empty (as though it that happened on its own) when you've just emptied it yourself. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- @XXN: Absolutely. Should Category:Cabinet seals of Albania go in Category:Ministries of Albania ? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- As a subcategory, yes. XXN, 11:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Something related: I just found Category:Logos of cabinet ministries in Albania. Hmm... Isn't this the same as Category:Cabinet seals of Albania? Or, at least they are very closely related and perhaps can be unified in a single category. @Kj1595: your opinion? XXN, 11:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC) P.S.: if this post is off-topic, it can be moved somewhere else.
- @Themightyquill: The reason I moved those logos in that category is to highlight they are "Coats of arms". @XXN: I can move those logos to the Cabinet seals category. That would be best. Kj1595 (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Kj1595 Once again, I don't have a problem with your logic or your argument, but the order in which you are doing things is not helpful. If you had nominated this for discussion with the rationale Category:Ministries of Albania and Category:Cabinet seals of Albania are better names" I would have moved it immediately without discussion. Nominating it with a rationale of "Empty category" encourages me to investigate why it has been emptied, where the files have gone, etc, which is rather difficult to do and a waste of my time. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: The reason why I couldn't move it to the new category is because I had already created it so it wouldn't let me. So at that point I was trying to figure out how to best reorganize the logos and find the appropriate category name for them. Kj1595 (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Kj1595: Maybe I've misunderstood, but from this edit (17:30, 2 April 2017), it looks like you moved a file to Category:Cabinet seals of Albania then created the category a minute later. I don't want to waste your time or my time any further by arguing about this. You are organizing things in a logical way, and I don't want to stop you. All I'm saying is, please don't waste by time by nominating categories for deletion as "empty" when you've just emptied them. Since you are organizing things in a logical way, it shouldn't be a problem for you to give a logical rationale along with your nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Should this be a sub-category of Category:Cabinet seals of Albania or Category:Logos of government institutions in Albania? Or should the images be upmerged to one or other of these categories? Themightyquill (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nomination at the suggestion of XXN - your further input is welcome. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- By me, what we have now in Category:Logos of cabinet ministries in Albania (Cabinet of albania logo.svg, MSLG of Albania.svg, MSPAI of Albania.svg, MSRP of Albania.svg, Prime minister of Albania.svg, Viceprimeminister of Albania.svg) in fact aren't logos, and it might be reasonably to unify Category:Logos of cabinet ministries in Albania with Category:Cabinet seals of Albania. --XXN, 14:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Old cabinet emblems of Albania. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The categories Snowfall and Snowing are more or less about the same thing. I think it would be wise to merge them (not sure which category name would be best). Or, if there is a slight difference in the scope of the two categories, there should be a good category description, to avoid confusion. Blue Elf (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Snowing is obviously for snow in the process of falling. Snowfall might be for snow on the ground (or whatever) after it has stopped snowing? I'm not sure if that's a useful differentiation to make, or if the latter wouldn't be well served by just Category:Snow. I'm neutral, but I agree that we need better descriptions if we're going to keep them separate. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've also tagged Category:Snow covers as very similar to the images in snowfall. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Snowning seems specifically about snow sceneries. Snowfall and Snow covers might be merged but I'm not sure. Please leave the mother category Snow alone. Pierre cb (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe to be replaced by "heavy snowfalls" and add pics with snow falling, like Nive otovoye Espagne.jpg. Or "snow falling" being other category.
--Lucyin (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Heavy snowfall is pretty dependent on context (a heavy snowfall in Alaska is different than a heavy snowfall in Florida). I don't think that's a good category name. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete and move all contents to Snowing or Snow. As noted by Themightyquill, all we need are categories for "snow on the ground" and "snow in the air", and while Snowfall can be either, Snow and Snowing are unambiguously only one each. And I agree with Themightyquill on the un-usefulness of a "Heavy snows" category, unless it's a metacategory for snowfalls with their own categories. This is the area's heaviest snowfall in recorded history, while this is a routine snow-clearing operation, but the latter is far heavier than the former. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with most of that, but I personally have a strong dislike for verbs as categories. I'd go for Category:Snow as the main category for all snow and Category:Falling snow or Category:Snow fallingas a sub category for the special case of "snow in the air". --El Grafo (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete and move all contents to Snowing or Snow. I agree with Nyttend. --Tangopaso (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Confusing name. Snow and Snowing are sufficient. - Olybrius (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. Could snowfall be for images showing snow that's lying where it fell, as opposed to currently falling snow or snow that has been moved? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: When I think "snowfall", I think of a statistical category generally measured in inches (US) or cm (Canada), which I think are the only countries that officially keep track of snow by the actual depth of what accumulates on the ground rather than the water content (the former being a more salient statistic for those who live in the affected area). In that category I would expect to see primarily graphs and charts; if there was snow in the image I would expect to see some sort of measuring stick.
Snow on the ground with no snow falling already has the "snow" categories. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Moved all contents to Category:Snow. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:Wikiportrait uploads. One photo does not need to be categorized by its photographer. Themightyquill (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- The same goes for Category:Photographs by Dani van Oeffelen (1 photo) and Category:Photographs by Frank van Oortmerssen (2 photos). - Themightyquill (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Against removal. These are hidden categories, made for photographers uploading images to Wikiportret in reaction to a notice on Wikipedia-NL to add images they made. To stimulate these photographers to donate more images, these categories were created. These images have very high quality, are unique because it are images/posed portraits from well-known or even famous people. These photographers should be valued and images they made should be kept together. Similar categories are Category:Photographs_by_Filip_Naudts (89), Category:Images by Paul Van Welden (166) and around 15 more. Sometimes it takes some time before a photographer will release new images. It would be bad if they would see the category removed, of which they are aware. These categories are not harming anyone it seems. Elly (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm certainly not proposing deletion of any additional categories from wikiportret, which have multiple photos. And I'm not opposed to re-creating these categories if there are additional photos uploaded in the future. I imagine those uploading images are doing so to see them used in wikipedia articles and to receive credit under their names. I highly doubt a wikipedia commons category with their name on it is much of a motivation. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Firmly against deletion of these categories. These are maintenance categories, and there is no way that Wikimedia will improve when these categories are deleted. I also miss a clear reason for deletion. Edoderoo (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per Ellywa and Edoderoo. Natuur12 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Edoderoo: I have given a very clear explanation for deletion. Categories exist to group similar images, not to give credit to the photographer. There is no advantage to a category with a single image. I miss a clear reason to keep them. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the images *are* grouped together, by photographer. I'm not sure why people say it's to give credits to anyone, and if it does, why is that such a problem? Edoderoo (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Edoderoo: I have given a very clear explanation for deletion. Categories exist to group similar images, not to give credit to the photographer. There is no advantage to a category with a single image. I miss a clear reason to keep them. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Grouping together denotes more than one, and in general, more than two. We could probably find some way to put each photo in a category all of its own - the point is to put similar photos together, not to split them off from eachother. Otherwise, let's put File:Axl Peleman.JPG in Category:Photos of Axl Peleman by Paul Van Welden just in case Paul Van Welden decides to upload another photo of Axl Peleman. And these are not, as you said, maintenance categories, or they would be sub-categories of Category:Commons maintenance. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- An exemption might be made if Jeroen van Lelieveld, Dani van Oeffelen, or Frank van Oortmerssen were notable enough to have their own wikipedia articles, making the fact that they took these images worth noting beyond attribution, but that doesn't seem to be the case. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
No additional uploads in over a year. Categories deleted with files upmerged to Category:Wikiportrait uploads. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Reopening: Do not close a DR you started when there is opposition. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- In Category:Photographs by Frank van Oortmerssen an additional image has been added. We should be patient for these professional photographers to add more images if they feel like it, or are asked to. I had to restore the images in these 3 categories. Useless work. Elly (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yann Would you care to contribute? The discussion has been open for over a year with no input aside from those directly involved. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- In Category:Photographs by Frank van Oortmerssen an additional image has been added. We should be patient for these professional photographers to add more images if they feel like it, or are asked to. I had to restore the images in these 3 categories. Useless work. Elly (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
While Themightyquill's close was out of process, their reasoning is largely correct. I have deleted the two single-image categories; they can be undeleted if additional photographs are uploaded. I kept the three-image category for now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
same as Category:Portrait paintings by production area Oursana (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Weird. I can't have missed the "by production area" category when I made this, since I added it. Unless it was just an accident, the only thing I can imagine is that was intended to be categorization of the people depicted by their country of origin, not the paintings/artists by their country of origin. So it could be named better as Category:Portrait paintings of people by country with sub-categories Category:Portrait paintings of men by country and Category:Portrait paintings of females by country (and the outlier, Category:Portrait paintings of montenegrins). I'm not sure if that's a worthy idea or not, but thanks for bringing it up, Oursana. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Alternately, I was just following the style of sub-category Category:Portrait paintings by country of origin by year which was created a few months earlier. Either way, that category should be dealt with as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Why can't we redirect this cat to Portrait paintings by production area?--Oursana (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Alternately, I was just following the style of sub-category Category:Portrait paintings by country of origin by year which was created a few months earlier. Either way, that category should be dealt with as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that was the obvious, but unspoken alternative. I was just trying to figure out why I would have created it initially as a sub-category of Portrait paintings by production area. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Surely "country" is a subcategory of "area" (a vague, catch-all word), not the same thing. Sionk (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Sionk: You are correct, so let's go with Category:Portrait paintings by production area and move Category:Portrait paintings by country of origin by year to Category:Portrait paintings by production area by year. The question remains, is it worth creating Category:Portrait paintings of people by country with sub-categories Category:Portrait paintings of men by country and Category:Portrait paintings of females by country, and Category:Portrait paintings of montenegrins (categorizing a painting by the nationality of its subject, not the the painting's origin or its current location? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think what I was trying to say was that I don't understand the eagerness to remove categorisation by country. It's a fairly well understood, acceptable and expected way to categorise most things. Sionk (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- A great amount of art was produced prior to the current state divisions of the world. Flemish art, in particular, would be hard to categorize by country, since its territory stretched over modern day France, Belgium and the Netherlands. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete --E4024 (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- @E4024: It's not a vote. You are welcome to contribute if you have any constructive thoughts to offer. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Portrait paintings by production area and Category:Portrait paintings by production area by year. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
bad name: Diese Kategorie sollte auf die am 20. September 2016 neu erstellte Category:Feldis/Veulden verschoben werden, da dies der richtige Name der Ortschaft ist > vgl. Artikel und Bezeichnung auf den Karten der Schweizer Landestopografie. Schofför (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in 2 years. Moved to Category:Feldis/Veulden. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no such word as "drepaniten", per a Google search. A previous editor of the category (see history) states "The term is german to describe "sclerotic crescent-shaped structures". Why we would need such a German-language category is not evident. The images in the category were microscopic photos of urine, such as File:Drepaniten18033.jpg. These are already in more appropriate categories and I am at a loss as to why this category exists. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've tagged the category with {{Empty page}}, so an admin will probably delete it soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
DELETED -- Taivo (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Could have been my mistake to open this cat, but I'm confused to see we have the Category:Paintings in Turkey but not a Category:Painting in Turkey. E4024 (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- At present we have the Category:Painters from Turkey as a subcat of Category:Paintings in Turkey. As little or much as I know painters are not paintings. Right? --E4024 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Redundant with Category:Paintings from Turkey. Move images and rename sub-categories accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, you mean we have Category:Turkish paintings, Category:Paintings in Turkey and Category:Paintings from Turkey?! In this case I think not only one but two of them are unnecessary/redundant. On the other hand, I still don't understand why we have the "painters" in a "paintings" category? I think we should "also" have a Category:Painting in Turkey in which we could put these guys and gals. Category:Paintings of Turkey should also be included in this mother of all cats on Turkey, paintings and painters... --E4024 (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- @E4024: A painting by Picasso on display in Istanbul would be in Category:Paintings in Turkey but not in Category:Paintings from Turkey. A painting by Nazmi Ziya Güran on display in Paris would be in Category:Paintings from Turkey but not in Category:Paintings in Turkey. We should maybe have Category:Painting by country with all the subcategories that entails, but that's a different issue for a different CFD. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Therefore I am right. --E4024 (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, so I didn't reread the initial discussion. You're asking to create Category:Painting in X for every country? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- I am a bit uneasy about several things; like the Category:Painters from Turkey being a subcat of Category:Paintings in Turkey. Is this reasonable? --E4024 (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, so I didn't reread the initial discussion. You're asking to create Category:Painting in X for every country? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Therefore I am right. --E4024 (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- I tried to arrange these parallel or conflicting areas a bit, but it is more difficult than I imagine. It gives me pain that people looking for the works of artists from Turkey will have to search Commons a lot. --E4024 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Cap Manuel Brühl (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Definitely redundant. Category:Cap Manuel, Dakar so that might give it precedence. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be another "Cap Manuel" and the French wikipedia article is just at Cap Manuel, so perhaps there is no need for disambiguation? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Brühl and Themightyquill: The category is now empty. Do we prefer to delete it or redirect? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's safe to delete Category:Cap Manuel, Dakar. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Tagged as empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's safe to delete Category:Cap Manuel, Dakar. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted as emtpy. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Cette catégorie fait double emploi avec la catégorie : Promenade du Peyrou. Ceux sont deux noms différents pour le même lieu. Située à Montpellier (France), la place royale du Peyrou était l'ancien nom utilisé au temps de la révolution française. Le nom usuel et dans les documents des monuments historiques est : Promenade du Peyrou. L'effacement de cette catégorie permettrait de clarifier la redondance de fichiers. DePlusJean (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- D'après l'historique, il semble que je suis le créateur de cette catégorie. J'approuve le point de vue de DePlusJean. Fred.th.·˙·. 22:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Redirected Category:Place royale du Peyrou to Category:Promenade du Peyrou. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
this category is not well defined Lockolimbo (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Je suis française et parle mal anglais. En 2006, il devait exister sur WP:en un article comme celui-ci portant le nom de Mechanical work. C'est donc ainsi que j'ai nommé cette catégorie. Maintenant Mechanical work redirige vers Work (physics). Si vous pensez que cette catégorie doit être renommée ou disparaitre et si vous parlez anglais, vous êtes plus apte que moi pour décider de son avenir. HB (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm french and I don't speak english very well. I think that on WP:en, in 2006, there was an article named mechanical work like this one. So, I have named this category like that. But now, the article doesn't exist. Its a redirect page to Work (physics). If you think that this category should be changed, and if you speak english you are better than me to choose the best solution.HB (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- The category contains many charts about Work (thermodynamics), but also inclined plane diagrams.
- Additionaly there are files which understand mechanical work more as industrial work:
_AN0257606.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Alltogether I can't figure out any clear definition what should be called "mechanical work".--Lockolimbo (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- If HB designed it as a parallel category for a wikipedia article like the one he mentioned above, it's redundant to Category:Work (physics) (which Ariadacapo created only last year). I'd suggest moving appropriate images to that parent category and then deleting this. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. I think only one of Category:Mechanical work and Category:Work (physics) should remain, and the other should be a redirection. I mildly prefer the second one, but I don’t mind. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: I have just turned Category:Work into a disambiguation page, to clarify the distinction between the form of energy in physics and the human activity concept. I also removed a few mis-categorized images, as reported above. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Redirected Category:Mechanical work to Category:Work (physics). - Themightyquill (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems mostly outdated, also adds ugly and oudated usage links to the filepage. I prose this category (ink. subcats) for deletion.. Steinsplitter (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep outdated? I see plenty of files that need to be checked and the issues mentioned seem to have been fixed. Multichill (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Useful, as files actually in use (which means, at least one Wikipedian found they were good enough to be featured in an article) should be processed first.
Not done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 12:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
This category is higly redundant with Category:Wikimedia_servers_in_Amsterdam_(Haarlem). There are currently 17 pictures in the former, of which 16 are pictures of Wikimedia servers, which is why some of them already were, all others now are after I added them, in Category:Wikimedia_servers_in_Amsterdam_(Haarlem). EddieGP (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I understand. Is Kennisnet a wikimedia server in Amsterdam? If yes, why isn't Category:Kennisnet a sub-category of Category:Wikimedia_servers_in_Amsterdam_(Haarlem)? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply. So, as far as I got it, Kennisnet is one of the companys hosting the wikimedia servers in Amsterdam. That is, Wikimedia doesn't build a server building themselves but instead they pay companies - in this case Kennisnet - to serve some things to them: They don't need to build walls, they don't need to install power cables in the building, they don't need to talk to internet service providers to have that building somehow connected to the internet, they don't need to bring racks into the server rooms. They pay Kennisnet to do these things, and the WMF "just" orders servers and puts in their hardware in the Kennisnet building and install it. The WMF has two datacenters in/near Amsterdam, one of which is hosted by Kennisnet (and the other isn't).
- We do have a category Category:Wikimedia_servers_in_Amsterdam_(Haarlem) as well as the same for Ashburn, the same for Carrollton and two more like those, all as sub-categories of Category:Wikimedia_servers_by_location. So we should definitely keep Category:Wikimedia_servers_in_Amsterdam_(Haarlem) the way it is: It is consistent with the overall structure below the WMF servers category. It holds all pictures that we have of the WMF servers in Amsterdam, which are 19 files currently. Of these, 3 files belong to the datacenter in Amsterdam which IS NOT hosted by Kennisnet (the OE16-toolserver ones) and 16 files belong to the other datacenter in Amsterdam which IS hosted by Kennisnet. The latter 16 files are therefor also categorized as Category:Kennisnet. This category in addition holds one single file (so 17 files over all): File:KennisnetGebouw.JPG shows the Kennisnet building in which the Wikimedia servers are, but is not a picture of the servers themselves and thus is not categorized as Category:Wikimedia_servers_in_Amsterdam_(Haarlem). EddieGP (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is currently overlap between the content of the two categories but they are inherently different, so there is room for both to expand in such a way that there wouldn't be overlap. I don't see this as a major problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Except maybe that Category:Kennisnet should not be a sub-category of Category:Wikimedia servers if they also host other content. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @EddieGP and Themightyquill: I removed the nominated category from the parent Category:Wikimedia servers. It seems that CFD can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Leaving separate in case of expansion. --. Themightyquill (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This is one of several categories under Category:Hindu temples in Odisha by district. That parent cat specifies "Hindu", but none of the subcats do. If all the files and subcats of these categories are for Hindu temples, then they should be renamed to say so. If they are not all Hindu, then they should be removed from the Hindu temple category tree. Whatever is done, for our purposes we probably shouldn't assume that all temples in an area are for the majority religion. Auntof6 (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I would proposed renaming Category:Hindu temples in Odisha by district to simply Category:Temples in Odisha by district. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- solution per user:Themightyquill--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Renamed Category:Hindu temples in Odisha by district to simply Category:Temples in Odisha by district. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Inappropriate category name: These are not colour photos of the war itself, as the name suggests. Instead these are (mostly) colour photographs of things, somehow related to WW I. Zaccarias (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe find another name or use an alternative type of listing like a large gallery page? --Zaccarias (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
My objective was to create a category so all colour images of WWI could be in the same place so as to be suitable for those looking to illustrate WWI reports, blogs, etc. I spend hours, and hours, and hour last year combing through SO many categories looking for coloured depictions of things related to the war. I am certainly open to changing the category name, but it will be IMMENSELY helpful to have colourized images separated from the thousands of black and while WWI photos.--- unsigned comment by Catfishmo, 21:11, 27. Apr. 2017
- Althought this doesn't seem like a well titled category, I can sympathise that Catfishmo had good intentions and that such a grouping is not totally useless. Can we come up with a better scheme? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree, it is perhaps not the best not the best category name. Any suggestions for a better one? Maybe "Colour images relating to World War I?" It doesn't matter to me what it's called, just something that will help people find coloured pics of WWI action, uniforms, and equipment. I had a terrible time when I was looking for pics--even finding groups of bl/wh photos was a challenge. You have to word your search almost exactly right to "find" the category. I think people looking for those images would be type in, "colour/color photos" and that was my thinking when I chose World War 1 colour photos. I don't know how to do a large gallery page and all the [[ ]] = <> code stuff has me baffled, but I'm certainly open to help and suggestions. I just want to help people find what they are looking for out of the thousands and thousands of WW1 photos.---- unsigned comment by Catfishmo, 19:23, 28. Apr. 2017
- The category now contains images that aren't photographs. At best, we could use Category:Colour images related to WWI, but I'd hate to see the base category of Category:Colour images or even Category:Colour images by topic. Maybe a large gallery would be best? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- This category needs to go. The name is entirely misleading and the most reasonable alternative, Category:Colour images related to WWI, should in practice contain THOUSANDS of images (if not more). This is a sure sign than we're doing something wrong. As it is this category is no more than an eclectic collection of photos that are otherwise already properly categorized. Poliocretes (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- The category now contains images that aren't photographs. At best, we could use Category:Colour images related to WWI, but I'd hate to see the base category of Category:Colour images or even Category:Colour images by topic. Maybe a large gallery would be best? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- They are an eclectic collection but they have two very unique features: they are related to WW1 AND they are all color. And among the thousands and thousands of WWI photos on Wiki Commons, color images relating to WWI are VERY rare. I doubt thousands of public domain color images of WWI even exist. I have scoured WWI photos and this was all I found. The purpose of a category is to aid searchers in finding photos with a unique feature. Color WWI images is a unique feature. Let's change the name to Category:Colour images related to WWI, but please don't deny those looking for WWI color images the enormous help it will be to have them all in one place. After all, there are hundreds of other WWI categories/subcategories containing thousands and thousands of WWI photos, 99.9% of which are black and white. WWI color images are like a needle in a haystack. Is it really a problem to add one more category to group this rare collection? --Catfishmo (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Catefishmo: You can't be convinced to turn this into a gallery at Colour images of World War I ? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
This category would be useful if the content was really "World War 1 Colour photos". But it is paintings, and thousands of modern reanctments and museum photos.--Avron (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- What about "Category:World War 1 colourized photos"? Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate everyone's input, but I really need to get this issue resolved. I'm getting ready to promote a big blog post about "Color WWI Public Domain images available on the net," but I can't finalize the article until this category issue is resolved. (Don't want to advertise it as one thing and then have it changed later and people can't find it.) Unless anyone has any major objections, I'm going to go with "Colour images relating to World War I." There are hundreds of categories/subcategories under "World War I," and honestly, dozens of them are much less descriptive and relevant to WWI but no one seems to object to those. Who do I contact to get the final word on this and make the change? Thanks so much! --Catfishmo (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I see that the category includes also, paintings, modern photos... therefore my suggestion above is not good, sorry. However, as suggested by Themightyquill, something in the kind of "Color images related to World War I" may be a satisfactory compromise for the problem, but there is no need to create Category:Colour images IMO. That said if I well understand, modern photos of commemorative events and monuments, can/will be included in the category... and by pushing logic further almost sub-categories of the category tree Category:World War I countains color images, example Category:Belgian refugees of World War I, or Category:World War I military equipment of Russia. In summary this is the same thing as Category:World War I but excluding black and white photos. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- I am neither for nor against, but @Catfishmo: You said above " (...) colour images of WWI could be in the same place so as to be suitable for those looking to illustrate WWI reports, blogs, etc... ", why are the black and white images less suitable for this purpose? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- In the fact all black and white photos of the WWI should be somewhere under Category:Black and white photographs, this is very far from being the case but yes they should be. And with the tool Help:FastCCI you should be able to find all the colour images from the category of your choice, by excluding the black and white photos, using the option "in this category but not in Black and white photographs", therefore another way to solve this can be to delete the category but to add the relevant sub-cat relative to Category:Black and white photographs to all the Black and white photographs Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment IMHO the category itself is not inappropriate (maybe the name sligthly is but not that much to invalidate its existence). The problem is that is has been misused and used as bin for dumping in it everything related to WWI even if photographed one century later. IMHO it should be emptied of unrelated media and renamed into something of "colour photographs of the World War I". SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've sorted out a great deal of the content into Category:Dioramas of World War I, Category:Early colour photographs of World War I, CategorY:Hand-colored photographs of World War I and other similar categories, but there are still quite a few images left here. I would propose simply removing them and deleting this category. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- re-categorize the files (already started by user:Themightyquill) and Delete: the nominated category name is not acceptable--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- re-categorize the files (already started by user:Themightyquill) and
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The entries here don't seem to be by name. The category should be renamed. Category:Trees in Portugal by taxon might make sense, but the entries that aren't taxons (for example, bananas) would have to go elsewhere. Auntof6 (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. Parent category Category:Trees by taxonomy is strangely named, but "by taxon" is more common. For the non-taxonomic categories (banana and orange), we could create an equivalent to Category:Fruit trees in the Czech Republic. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- A taxon is a name actually, so renaming these categories isn't exactly required. I previously considered renaming them but refrained as they could also be used as parent categories with "by taxon" being a child alongside a "by common name" and possibly others. But as common names no longer seem to be in favour, because of their imprecision I suppose, I am rather neutral on this. - Olybrius (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. The nominated category to be moved to Category:Trees in Portugal by taxon--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Move to Category:Trees in Portugal by taxon. | |||
| Actions | The categories were moved per the discussion. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | Olybrius | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
See also: Category talk:Banners and signs at demonstrations and protests supporting Basque prisoners. These protests and associated propaganda do not support Basque prisoners but people imprisoned by its relationship to ETA. A better name should be chosen Discasto talk 20:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't agree at all. Many of the Basque prisoners are not related to ETA, e.g., the detainees after the events of Altsasu in 2016. In the other hand, some of the Basque prisoners have not yet been judged, so it could be rather forward to give them an ETA status. - Joxemai (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I don't actually know who the Altsasu detainees are, but it doesn't change anything. These banners and the like does not support generic Basque prisoners but only a specific subset of "Basque prisoners". Do at least agree on this? --Discasto talk 07:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC) PS: I know, you're referring to the people that was detained after the attack to a couple of civil guards and their girlfriends in a bar. That's actually a good example. They're facing terrorism charges, so you actually mean that this category deals with people jailed on terrorism charges (I'm not assessing whether the charges are right or not). Thus, it should be Category:Banners and signs at demonstrations and protests relating to Basque prisoners on terrorism charges, isn't it? --Discasto talk 08:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- The Altsasu detainees are those that now are in prison because they attacked some "guardia civil" outside a pub in Altsasu. Search in google: "altsasuko atxilotuak". You say: "but it doesn't change anything", if you don't know what is about, how can you say that it doesn't change anything? I don't agree with you at all: basque prisoners in general are related with basque conflict and not with ETA. Not all detainees in Altsasu are jailed on terrorism (and those are also an example). In one word, we cannot say "all is ETA". By the way this discussion was held in a similar category here, and I think a decision was taken there. - Joxemai (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I do know now who the Alsasua detainees are. They're all charged on terrorism (at least the detainees, as we're talking about "prisoners", arent't we?). However, that's not the point. The point is whether we can label all these criminals as "Basque prisoners", as if being Basque was a reason for being jailed (it isn't) or as if these enthusiastic guys creating banners and participating in demonstrations are supporting any Basque prisoner (they aren't). Thus, from the discussion you quote, although I don't find it the best option, Category:Banners and signs regarding prisoners related to the Basque conflict could be a compromise name for the category. --Discasto talk 10:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Either way, I don't see why we need both Category:Banners and signs at demonstrations and protests relating to Basque prisoners and Category:Banners and signs at demonstrations and protests supporting Basque prisoners. Can we just use the latter? We could easily sub-divide into ETA and Altasu prisoners if we wanted. - Themightyquill (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | Merged file and deleted category. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | I merged the only file in the category and nominated it for deletion. "X of Y of Z of Alpha of Beta" categories are super convoluted and go against the guidelines anyway. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Delete as SMALLCAT with only one member. The only vehicles with this type of transmission are railway locomotives, the single subcategory. Other transmission types, hydrostatic transmissions in particular, are NOT the same type and should not be categorise with them. Also the parent category here implies that the crucial factor is diesel power of the prime mover, rather than the more specific and far more relevant type of transmission. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, both are important. "Diesel-hydraulic" only indicates, that a vehicle is driven by diesel generated power, which is converted by some sort of hydraulic transmission. This includes hydrostatic drive as well as hydrodynamic drives. --MB-one (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Furthermore hydrodynamic drives are used for boats and ships as well. --MB-one (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- I would strongly oppose combining hydrostatic drive vehicles and diesel-hydraulic locomotives under a single supercat. That would be to propagate the already prevalent misunderstanding about how diesel-hydraulic locomotives work. The connection between those two designs is primarily linguistic, not engineering. If they are linked in the category tree, then it shouldn't be any closer than a super-supercat, with a clear intermediate level for hydrodynamic transmissions.
- As to the inclusion of ships, then why not include diesel-mechanical locomotives, Category:automatic transmissions or anything using a torque converter? Admittedly it is difficult to write a precise and accurate definition of what a diesel-hydraulic locomotive is vs. a diesel-mechanical. but if we do that and find a meaning for "D-H vehicles" then I still wouldn't see large ship hydrodynamic transmissions as being part of it - boat transmissions, especially scoop-controlled torque converters, then they might be. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- I understand your reservations, but then "diesel-hydraulic" is just not precise enough. Maybe we need a category "Diesel-hydrodynamic vehicles"? --MB-one (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- As I mention above. But is there anything else in such a group, other than diesel-hydraulic locomotives, and still keeping a usefully consistent definition? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Potentially there are boats and ships with such drives. For now the category "Diesel-hydrodynamic locomotives" would suffice. --MB-one (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- As I mention above. But is there anything else in such a group, other than diesel-hydraulic locomotives, and still keeping a usefully consistent definition? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- I understand your reservations, but then "diesel-hydraulic" is just not precise enough. Maybe we need a category "Diesel-hydrodynamic vehicles"? --MB-one (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @MB-one and Andy Dingley: any developments with this CFD? I just mention that proposed category:Diesel-hydrodynamic locomotives is not created. Or are we satisfied with current category tree?--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Notes | I'm closing this as stale due to the lack of consensus or comments in the last couple of years. It's not a SMALLCAT anymore anyway. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC) | |||