Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/10
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive October 2017
Empty, bad name, miscategorized in this edit. — Jeff G. ツ 04:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Bad name}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
This category contained previously media of two different churches, now media is in two categories, this category is not needed anymore. Htm (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, It seems to be so. I also go for deleting this category. --Lakritsa (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Done: Moved without redirect. --Achim (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Wrong syntax for name - should be François Vincent Mathieu Latil needs to lose the dashes and suffixed comma BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Or just Category:François Vincent Latil if that's what's normally used (e.g. fr:François Vincent Latil) - Themightyquill (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that's how he's commonly known. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:François Vincent Latil. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Useless category Lacrymocéphale (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Useless category. Lacrymocéphale (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- It's already empty. You should ask its speedy deletion, not proposing a discussion, IMHO. --E4024 (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- @E4024: Agreed. I was confused by the tool-link "Nominate category for discussion" because I read "deletion". --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Isctgceh768uc kg d 160.90.79.116 04:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
duplicate cat (Category:Culture of Bangladesh by city) Afifa Afrin (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Done: Dup Category:Culture of Bangladesh by city. --~Moheen (keep talking) 17:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
This category redirect should be deleted so that commons Category:Captain Kidd Jr. may be moved back to its rightful spot. This category is an exception to WP:JR/SR; see exception?. Tom.Reding (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Category:Captain Kidd Jr. redirected to Category:Captain Kidd, Jr.. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Should be "Men wearing striped shirts" Mjrmtg (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- I moved the category and flagged this one for deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Men wearing striped shirts by Auntof6. - Themightyquill (talk)
Diese Kategorie sollte in Category: Schweizerhäuser (Klein-Glienicke) umbenannt werden. Es gibt auch andernorts Schweizerhäuser. FrAnneser (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Support --MB-one (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Or Category:Swiss chalet style architecture in Klein-Glienicke? Am I mistaken that this category is for a group of buildings, not one building (using a proper name) ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- AFAIK, it's a designated group of buildings. There might by more chale-style architecture in Klein-Glienicke, that isn't part or the Schweizerhäuser. --MB-one (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting - it seems they're actually UNESCO protected. UNESCO lists them as "artificial swiss village" which seems pretty forced to me, so it makes sense to use the proper name of Schweizerhäuser in this case. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
In Germany you use the term "Schweizerhaus" for many houses built in swiss-chalet style. The four houses in Klein-Glienicke are also called "Schweizerhäuser", but they are not the only ones in the world with this name. Category:Swiss chalet style architecture in Klein-Glienicke would be ok too. FrAnneser. But I would prefer Category:Schweizerhäuser (Klein-Glienicke)7.10.2017
- Support the last..--Oursana (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved to Category: Schweizerhäuser (Klein-Glienicke)- Themightyquill (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a mis-spelt, duplicate category that I created by mistake. There is already a correctly-spelt "Category:Pinnacles in Gloucestershire". Motacilla (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- I tagged it with {{Bad name}} to get it deleted. For future reference, this kind of problem can be handled with that template instead of discussing. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Closing: has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Not in category tree. — Jeff G. ツ 05:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Also, there is no solar eclipse for the indicated date, and the name is not in Spanish. I've put a {{Speedy}} tag on it. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination, as the cat was already speedily deleted. — Jeff G. ツ 00:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Closing -- cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Category is created by confirmed sock-puppet. For self promotion. See here. Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 16:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Done: all contents deleted, empty cat deleted. --Guanaco (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
empty, can be deleted Jbergner (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Jbergner: Category:Kirche Bockelwitz is the proper name? Both categories have been around for years, so I think it makes sense to leave a redirect, whichever way we go. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Leave as redirect. It was apparently called this for a number of years as demonstrated by the the files in the Kirche Bockelwitz category. Wikimandia (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Kirche Bockelwitz. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
How is this different from Category:Enamellers? Do we need both? If so, can we add descriptions? Auntof6 (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Merge them. --E4024 (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- FYI, Wikipedia has pages mentioning enameller, enameler, enamellist and enamelist. The "-ers" are substantially more common than the "ists" but both are quite common. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Is WP a reliable source? --E4024 (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're talking about. They're all valid words/spellings in the dictionary. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Is WP a reliable source? --E4024 (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- FYI, Wikipedia has pages mentioning enameller, enameler, enamellist and enamelist. The "-ers" are substantially more common than the "ists" but both are quite common. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Merge Category:Enamellers (created 2015) up as Enamelist was created first (2009). I believe Enamelist is the more common American spelling and both are correct, so two categories are redundant. Wikimandia (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Redirected Category:Enamellers to Category:Enamelists - Themightyquill (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Catégorie à supprimer : doublon incomplet de / Category to delete: incomplete duplicate of category:Hortus_Romanus_juxta_systems_Tournefortianum_paulo Stefdn (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in two weeks. Redirected to Category:Hortus Romanus juxta systems Tournefortianum paulo. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
ffflfflfddogotgtygitg 166.109.0.216 17:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Close nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
This category is a misspelling of Cunninghams White and should be deleted. User-duck (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've tagged it with the {{Bad name}} template, so it should be deleted soon. @User-duck: For future reference, this kind of issue is best handled with that template instead of creating a discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
spelling mistake, correct one is Category:SZ Rom 10/2017 Kapitolinische Museen XanonymusX (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Done: Bad name, deleted. --Achim (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
To be deleted - the same as Emmauskirken (Kerteminde Kommune) Beethoven9 (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Done: Empty, dupe, author's request, deleted. --Achim (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Empty category. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, empty. --Achim (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I can see the value of images which depict different versions/models of the same object, but I don't think "new and old" is the right way to phrase it. If we had an image of both a 1939 Lincoln Contintental and a 1981 Lincoln Continental, it would be useful to categorize it somehow, but neither can now be called new. An image which just shows a parking lot full of cars, some newer and some older, doesn't need a special category. Themightyquill (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- I think so too (Comparison of "two or three things" / or Aggregation).
But if that, Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/10/Category:New and old vehicles? (Category:New and old vehicles) --Benzoyl (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC) - In this case, I think "New and old" is relative, not absolute (2010s works etc). If there is a good representation.. --Benzoyl (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Absurd. Wikimandia (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I've created Category:Age comparisons and Category:Age comparisons of objects for most of the contents, but I'm not sure what to do with the remaining categories and images. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill, Thanks. It's good cat-name. --Benzoyl (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Never needed and empty right now anyways. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 23:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Age comparisons. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
كلثومة أبوري 160.161.206.63 22:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Cat name not in English. The name seems to translate to "Articles", and the images in it don't seem to fit that. I also doubt that the large amount of text here is appropriate in a category, although I don't know what it says. Auntof6 (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- There was one file there of some trees with a net on them. I took it to cat "Trees" and now this strange cat is empty for deletion. Maybe the trees with a net on them can need a more specific cat (there are other similar files) but that's another issue. Delete and close. --E4024 (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Also: The cat was opened by a "sporadic" user who will doubtfully remember his/her password to come back if ever. I am taking the liberty to empty the already fileless cat and mark it for deletion. Aunto, can you close this please? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Closed and deleted as out of scope, looked to me like someone was trying to create an article. Would have redirected if there was any obvious category to redirect to.--KTo288 (talk)
Moved from Volgogradsky Prospekt, which is the preferred transliteration at en:wiki. KTo288 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- A.Savin reverted to Volgogradsky. Case closed? Retired electrician (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Cool.--KTo288 (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Needs to be deleted because I made a typo – "tesselata" should be "tessellata" Peter coxhead (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I marked the cat for deletion. Not much to discuss here. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Should be a redirect to "Mother Shipton's Cave" BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Done. (I mean it had already been done. :-) --E4024 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Not in category tree. — Jeff G. ツ 04:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Done: Empty. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
calling caTEGORIZED ELEMENT WHERE THEY ARE FROM ZIP 66.130.215.166 13:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done: invalid reason. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Gets confused with Category:Parliament Hill, London BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Should this not be renamed Parliament Hill, Ottawa. It gets confused with Parliament Hill, London; and Parliament Hill Fields in London. Possibly there are other Parliament Hill's too. I found a few London photos here today.--BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, there is also en:Parliament Hill (Quebec City), though it doesn't (yet) have a category on commons. Moving to Category:Parliament Hill, Ottawa makes sense to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Parliament Hill, Ottawa. Category:Parliament Hill turned into a disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
empty - delete Mef.ellingen (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"Tierced" in heraldry means that there are three distinct and equally broad bands of tinctures (i.e. colours) in the shield. Therefore it is wrong to have a category "Tierced ..." with only two tinctures in the name. As there are no arms that follow the logic of the category's name, the category should be deleted. De728631 (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- ja, should be my error, Category:party per bend sinister vert and gules. thx --W!B: (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Category created by mistake. Wikimandia (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
should be joined with its subcategory Category:An epitome of the natural history of the insects of India Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree Notafly (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Merged into Category:An epitome of the natural history of the insects of India. -Themightyquill (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
should be merged with its (sole) subcategory; no distinction apparent Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Category:Abbildungen zu Karl Illiger's Uebersetzung von Olivier's Entomologie, oder, Naturgeschichte der Insecten merged into Category:Abbildungen zu Karl Illiger's Uebersetzung von Olivier's Entomologie. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
All images in the category are copyvios, as there is no FoP for interiors in Germany. h-stt !? 19:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@H-stt: Please feel free to nominated the images for deletion. You might use "VisualFileChange" (under your preferences > gadgets) to batch nominate the whole category. So long as they exist here, so should the category to group them together. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
We have cateories for half dozen individuals named John Richardson. Why should this guy have pride of place? I found the category redirection here very higholy disruptive. Geo Swan (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Let's make this a disambiguation page. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Converted to disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Category probably needs to be deleted. I'd created it mistakenly as I hadn't known that there were two Punjabs. Nirinsanity (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as per request. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
should be joined with Category:Beytraege zur Naturgeschichte; both categories seem to originate from the same scan at BHL Jochen Burghardt (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
---
No objection: joined Category:Beytraege zur Naturgeschichte into Category:Beitraege zur Naturgeschichte. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Isn't it better to call this category "Modernist architecture"? Stolbovsky (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- I think so. There was a previous discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:Modern movement in the United States, and "modernist architecture" was the preferred variant, so now we have Category:Modernist architecture in the United States. --ghouston (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
What about categories like Category:Modern movement churches, should they be renamed to Modernist churches? See also Category:Churches by architectural style. --ghouston (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Fine by me. I'm going to tag a few other categories to help ensure we have consensus before such a big move. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- At the same time, we might move the "Modern movement in X" categories from Category:Modernism by country to Category:Modernism in X. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, if we rename this category, then subcategories as you wrote "Modernist churches" and others should be renamed too. As in other "ist" categories. --Stolbovsky (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with the proposed change as well. Will proceed to move Category:Modern movement architecture to Category:Modernist architecture, and the correspondent subcats accordingly.-- Darwin Ahoy! 05:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
A while back we eliminated the general landmarks category and similar subcats. (See this closed CFD for details.) I think this should be eliminated for the same reasons, and the contents distributed to other appropriate categories. Or, maybe it should just be renamed to Category:Tourist attractions in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Auntof6 (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Tourist attractions works for me. The contents of Category:Amusements in Allentown, Pennsylvania might also be merged into that category. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Visitor attractions in Allentown, Pennsylvania to match category tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Unnecessary a category for a TV show and without any files the files were excluded by Copyrights Contribuidor da Wikipédia (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
this can all be put into Category:Scrap metal or Category:Abandoned vans.-- Foreman Eder (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Foreman Eder: Agreed. What do we do with the category afterwards? Redirect to Category:Scrap metal ? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category:Scrap metal. Wikimandia (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Scrap metal. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Non notable, (wiki article and wikidata are also deleted) Afifa Afrin (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted empty category per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
We seem to have a variety of categories for this same institution. Any preference? Themightyquill (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have no preference. Someone who knows more that me should determine the category. (Probably you are in the best position.) Kalbbes (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Merged everything to Category:D. J. Government Science College. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Move to Category:Cuisine of Bengal to match Category:Culture of Bengal and other parent categories? Themightyquill (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Cuisine of Bengal. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Within this general cat we have some cats, like Category:Carreiros, that are in languages other than English. I doubt using local languages for professions common to other nations (for example they would be "arabacı" in Turkish) is acceptable. Please note that I have no problem with Category:Toreros, but even that one is under Category:Bullfighting and Category:Animal-related occupations. In the end this is not a proper name nor a local cuisine thing, like a soup. (For instance "caldo verde" is very much OK.) What do you people think about this? E4024 (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- What word would you use to replace Carreiros? They seem to be the drivers of wicker sleds potentially unique to Madeira.[1] There may not be an natural English alternative in use.
- I don't have a problem with using Category:Toreros, but it does seem weird that it's subcategories are Category:Bullfighters from X. We might use Category:Bullfighters instead which would then include Category:Raseteurs, Category:Banderilleros and potentially others.
- The only potential problem I see is Category:Marskramers, which might be redundant with Category:Pedlars, but I don't speak enough Dutch to know if there's a clear distinction to be made.
- If you have other examples in mind, please name them, but note that the English language uses a great number of words from other languages. See, for instance en:Arriero, en:Condottieri, en:Concierge, en:Impresario, en:Mahout, etc- Themightyquill (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Stalled discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Needlessly-specific subcat that would likely only have this one file. Upmerge to Category:Signatures, or better yet, place in its by-country and by-occupation subcats. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support @DMacs: At very least. The English-language article en:J-Pimp has been twice deleted for non-notability. It seems it was translated into Hungarian before those deletions happened, and thats likely the only reason the image is still in use. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted after image was deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Seems to me to be too vague to be useful. Jmabel ! talk 04:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. This should be covered by the various "Built in <year>" categories. Is there any particular reason you singled out the buildings category from everything else in Category:Old objects? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Because I was doing categorization work, and this useless category was on one of the photos I was categorizing. - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- It may be necessary "Category:Old buildings by type". "Numerousness of Old buildings" depending on the cities. (There are many old buildings in London.) --Benzoyl (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Because I was doing categorization work, and this useless category was on one of the photos I was categorizing. - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete "Old" is too subjective. "Old" buildings in my area are 80 years old. Categories should simply be "Built in..." with year/century. Wikimandia (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- There are files unknown year/century. --Benzoyl (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- I confess that I invented a Category:Old houses. The other problem is, there are "destroyed houses" and another similar that I forgot now. Say, "damaged"... --E4024 (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I've emptied it somewhat, but I'm not sure how to proceed from here. Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- What the heck are the "age comparisons" categories about? - Jmabel ! talk 00:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I've emptied it somewhat, but I'm not sure how to proceed from here. Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I used them to replace the previously existing "new and old" categories. It seemed somewhat worthwhile to have a category tree for images that compare similar things of different ages... but since "new" is quickly outdated and both "new" and "old" are arbitrary, "age comparison" seemed like a good solution. I should have removed it from Category:Old buildings before, so I'll do so now. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- On that note, I think Category:New buildings should be deleted as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- I completely agree about getting rid of Category:New buildings. - Jmabel ! talk 16:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- I still don't understand the "age comparisons" categories. Insofar as I can make any sense of it, it seems to be a sequence based on a sort key, not something about membership in a category. That is much more suitable for a gallery page (where the sequence is explicit and is maintained on the gallery page) than for a category. - Jmabel ! talk 16:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- On that note, I think Category:New buildings should be deleted as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean about sort key. All the images should include both something old and something new within the same image. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, that makes more sense. We probably should have a template providing standard language for such categories explaining that is how they are to be used, not that one image in the category is somehow to be compared to another image. - Jmabel ! talk 16:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
familie Königsberg lebt weiter und ich bin nachfahren von von königsberg 2003:51:4F24:D611:D545:CA80:F9A5:BE48 19:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Das ist interessant, aber hier wird normalerweise nur Kategorisierung diskutiert. --rimshottalk 23:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Closed, not a category discussion. --rimshottalk 23:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
empty category Jon Kolbert (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted quite a while ago already, as per nom. --rimshottalk 23:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
My apologies, created as a duplicate of "Category:Holy Cross church, Sherston" - I've fixed the Wikidata link so this category can be deleted. Blythwood (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty, in November. --rimshottalk 23:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Is there some reason this category should exist? Could it be renamed Category:Books about botany in Latin or, matching en:List of florilegia and botanical codices, Category:Florilegia and botanical codices ? Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- The same goes for Category:Flora botany book categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Latin-language books about botany. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
the category and its sole subcategory should be renamed to reflect their differences (e.g. origin/resolution of images) properly Jochen Burghardt (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- At first glance, I would suggest merging into Category:Curtis's Botanical Magazine, Volume 19. No clear reason to separate by source of the scan. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ok for me, but maybe we should ping User-duck (talk · contribs), who added the notice about different qualities on 16 Aug 2017, and wait a nother couple of days for her/his opinion. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- @User-duck: Ok for you, too? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
No objection; merging Category:Curtis's botanical magazine (1804) into Category:Curtis's Botanical Magazine, Volume 19, as suggested above by Themightyquill. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Created by banned sock Nipponese Dog Calvero 209.242.141.28 18:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- And what's the reason for discussion? If the image needs deletion, please nominate it. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: the reason is perfectly reasonable. Can you estimate how many instances of my face can be found on Commons? And no yet a category, whereas this girl gained it with one photo. Leaning to
Keep only because of d:Q17182547#P373. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: the reason is perfectly reasonable. Can you estimate how many instances of my face can be found on Commons? And no yet a category, whereas this girl gained it with one photo. Leaning to
Kept. Creation by a banned user is not, in itself, grounds for deletion. The person has wikipedia articles in several languages. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
it's difficult to separate humans and allegories represented as humans - and allegories are not humans. So my proposal I already told User:PicturePrince is to move to Category:Grave sculptures at Zentralfriedhof, Vienna. Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Personifications are both Allegories, and People. So some allegories are people. You could move it to Category:Grave sculptures of people at Zentralfriedhof, Vienna and put it in Category:Grave sculptures of people. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Ich finde auch, dass eine Kategorie Grave sculptures at Zentralfriedhof, Vienna genügt, allzu viele sind das ja sowieso nicht und es bleibt übersichtlicher. Zusätzlich kann man sie natürlich in die jeweiligen Unterkategorien von Grave sculptures of people geben, die sind ja auch alle noch nicht überfüllt. Wenn die eine oder andere Kategorie irgendwann einmal überfüllt ist, kann man sie immer noch aufteilen. Liebe Grüße, --Häferl (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I moved it to Category:Grave sculptures at Zentralfriedhof, Vienna. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
These party photos seem to be in direct violation of COM:NOTUSED and one of the examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose is "private party photos" Domdeparis (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Gives me an impression like a cat for personal files, most of which should leave the place. --E4024 (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- If the files are inappropriate for Commons, even the ones where a number of famous people are in attendance, by all means, they can go. It has been my impression, however, that birthday parties are allowed at Commons, unless they are the private photos of non-notable people, and that photos do not need to be used at this time in articles to be allowed here. We have donated over 3000 images, and hundreds have been used by people we do not know in at least 15 language projects. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment It seems to me to be very hard to draw the line either way on what basically amount to routine snapshots, but of reasonably notable people. I'd be inclined to keep them, because there is little "cost" involved; on the other hand, I probably wouldn't have uploaded most of these if they'd been mine. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sincere thanx for your neutral input which is so valuable to Wikimedia projects! I (for the donors I work with) would probably not have uploaded some of them either, but free images can be very hard to come by, and many of ours have been used all over, often as the only image an articles has, which is what we're so happy about and what keeps us going and gay. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Domdeparis: If you think the images should be deleted, then nominate the images for deletion. This forum is for discussing the category. So long as we have 26 images of Jacob's birthday parties, I think it makes sense to keep them together in a single place. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: ok thanks for the reply I misunderstood the aim of the discussion page. I am more worried about the use of these photos on the English Wikipedia, I suppose someone using commons to host private party albums is not really my priority. it is the use of these photos to promote a non-notable person and their cabaret and friends on wikipedia that is more worrying for me. --Domdeparis (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm trying to find a spirit of good faith in this spiraling campaign of yours, here and on English Wikipedia. I'm truly sorry I didn't write to you first and ask for your permission to reinstate an image of 2 singers doing a song in the article about that song, and move your movie poster, which had replaced it, furher down in the article. I honesty had no idea that would lead to this huge bruhaha, here and there, which may go on for years and involve scores of users, whether or not I quit myself.
- Other editors: My reply may seem our of place, and I'm sorry, but I can find no other real reason for all of this going on than that one image problem. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- I am a new pages reviewer and article for creation reviewer and I sometimes come across problem editors that I keep an eye on and I have been watching the talk page here of another editor who had been causing problems on English Wikipedia and I noticed that you had gotten into quite a heated discussion with him so out of curiosity I looked at your userpage and saw the "biography" of Emil Eikner which made me curious (again) so I searched Wikipedia for a reference to this person and that was how I came across the photos that you were adding to different pages. I changed one of the photos to add a more relevant one and informed you on you talk page why I had done that and made a suggestion that you create a page for the person that you are referencing by adding photos and creating a redirect under the name of that person to point to the photo. I found this strange behaviour and a little spammy so I scratched the surface a little and discovered what was happening. I am now following User:Themightyquill's advice and nominating the images for deletion. I think I understand your veiled menace about involving "scores of users whether or not I quit myself" as referring to sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets. Correct me if I am wrong. --Domdeparis (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Wrong about me again. I am referring to the 30-40 users at Swedish Wikipedia who discussed this endlessly, and not very succesfully, with lots of nasty personal comments for weeks and text decimeters on end. Whether or not some of them were sock puppets I do now know, but that assumption of yours looks like another accusation. You have not "discovered" anything that warrants your extensive actions here and at English Wikipedia. "I changed one of the photos to add a more relevant one and informed you on you talk page why I had done that and made a suggestion that you create a page for the person" is not actually what happened, in the right sequence. You reverted at first without talking.
- Actions like these, where good faith is screamingly absent, make a lot of good people quit Wikimedia projects. Didn't you know? Anyway, right now I'm too busy replying to all of your deletion nonimations, which I find relatiatory against me and frivlous, so I can't go on and on here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- I am a new pages reviewer and article for creation reviewer and I sometimes come across problem editors that I keep an eye on and I have been watching the talk page here of another editor who had been causing problems on English Wikipedia and I noticed that you had gotten into quite a heated discussion with him so out of curiosity I looked at your userpage and saw the "biography" of Emil Eikner which made me curious (again) so I searched Wikipedia for a reference to this person and that was how I came across the photos that you were adding to different pages. I changed one of the photos to add a more relevant one and informed you on you talk page why I had done that and made a suggestion that you create a page for the person that you are referencing by adding photos and creating a redirect under the name of that person to point to the photo. I found this strange behaviour and a little spammy so I scratched the surface a little and discovered what was happening. I am now following User:Themightyquill's advice and nominating the images for deletion. I think I understand your veiled menace about involving "scores of users whether or not I quit myself" as referring to sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets. Correct me if I am wrong. --Domdeparis (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: ok thanks for the reply I misunderstood the aim of the discussion page. I am more worried about the use of these photos on the English Wikipedia, I suppose someone using commons to host private party albums is not really my priority. it is the use of these photos to promote a non-notable person and their cabaret and friends on wikipedia that is more worrying for me. --Domdeparis (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I've now started replying to these (so far) 24 deletion requests and have had time to do about 1/3. The main problem is that the nominator (here and in all of those) seems not even to have looked at the texts on the image pages. In other words, these deletions requests, of all the ones I've seen, and I've seen many, look like they are unusually arbitrary. That strengthens my reaction that they mainly are retaliatory in nature. I can appreciate the valiant and excellent work my opponent here does in cleaning up a lot of articles. However, before a zealous knight in shining clean-up armor dashes in and starts scrubbing like mad, it's always best to check on the amount of real word (not presumed) filth that actually needs attention. (1) I mentioned an unknown (as far as reliable WP sources go) Swedish underground cabaret producer, active since 2004, in a few places on English Wikipedia (very few, as compared to all my work there) and only where I thought it would be strange, even ungenerous, not mention him by name. (2) I wrote an intro for his gallery here that was too long. (3) I linked to it from one image caption on English Wikipedia. 2 & 3e were errors of mine that I admit. But all this??? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- The nominator seems now to have conceded here that the reason given for the 24 deletion nominations of all the images in this category is not valid. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Appearances can be deceptive...The nominator (me) has clearly stated that as there is no consent from the different identifiable people in the photo then it is contrary to the consent section in Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Commons:NOTUSED is a redirect to a section of Commons:Project scope and in the section "Evidence" of this same policy here Commons:Project_scope#Evidence it states "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and that any required consent has been obtained." As the uploader you must demonstrate the consent as well as the licensing by the owner of the photo (which is apparently in order). --Domdeparis (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
At least some of tthe images were kept in the deletion discussion, so it makes sense to keep the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
empty category Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- File:Veleslav2013.jpg, File:Ярошенко Анатолій Дмитрович.jpg – these persons do not belong to the ancient Slavic Volkhvs. Slavic neopaganism ≠ Slavic paganism. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- And? There is no separate meanings of volkhv. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Wojsław Brożyna: What's the problem with putting those two images in Category:Volkhvs in Slavic neopaganism? Proposing a category for deletion as "empty" when you've just removed images from the category seems somewhat disingenuous. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
No clear reason for deletion. Restored images and closing discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
There are two categories about the Vierschaar Amsterdam (the other is Category:Vierschaar Amsterdam). This is the newer. C messier (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- I would think Category:Vierschaar, Royal Palace of Amsterdam would be the most appropriate name, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Or Category:Tribunal, Royal Palace of Amsterdam. --C messier (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- It's in Category:Vierschaar and all the peers also use the word Vierschaar. We have no Category:Tribunals en:Vierschaar exists at wikipedia. It seems to be a formal name. I don't see the need to translate. We could also put it in Category:Former courthouses in the Netherlands perhaps? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- It is just a room in a building. The room has historically had a judicial function, but that was long ago. I think it is better to have the name of the building in front. --Paulbe (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- That's not generally how we format things. Look at Category:Halls of mirrors - with only one exception, it's "Name of Room, Building". - Themightyquill (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Vierschaar, Royal Palace of Amsterdam. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Potential overlap with Category:Comparisons. Contrast is a subcategory of Category:Photographic parameters and Category:Colorimetry. Comparisons is a subcategory of just Category:Reference. Can move Category:Contrast to Category:Color contrast or Category:Photographic contrast for clarity, and move some of its content and sub-categories to Category:Comparisons ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Photographic contrast. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a Zastava 101, the Yougoslav version of Fiat 128 (with a special hatchback). But the original poster insists it would be a Zastava 1300. This is in no way a Zastava 1300 (Yougoslav Fiat 1300). Original poster refuses to accept the correct category. Please help! OnkelFordTaunus (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- @SuperTank17: Can you comment here before the category is deleted? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- @OnkelFordTaunus: I'm not sure I understand. How do you explain the words "Zastava 1300" on the car in File:Zastava_1300_in_Croatia.jpg and File:Zastava 1300 Luxe R.jpg? Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: The cars you are showing are real Zastava 1300 cars. My problem is this file File:Zastava-model-1300-on-display-in-a-car-dealership-391765946774.jpg That is a Zastava 101, it is a completely different car from the real 1300s. But the original poster of the file refuses to accept the correct category. OnkelFordTaunus (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- @OnkelFordTaunus: I'm not sure I understand. How do you explain the words "Zastava 1300" on the car in File:Zastava_1300_in_Croatia.jpg and File:Zastava 1300 Luxe R.jpg? Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- @OnkelFordTaunus: So the issue is with the image and the way it has been categorized. There is nothing wrong with Category:Zastava 1300. The category itself does not need discussion. I'm not sure where you should take your question... maybe to the Commons:Village pump? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I agree. I just wanted to discuss the category of the file File:Zastava-model-1300-on-display-in-a-car-dealership-391765946774.jpg. The category itself is okay. I have no idea where to go to continue the discussion. OnkelFordTaunus (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the category, and the file in question has been renamed File:Zastava-model-101-on-display-in-a-car-dealership-391765946774.jpg. Closing. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
As a general rule, category names on Commons are in English, although the proper name version of this firm includes "Arquitectos", the internationalised form of the name as used on En Wikipedia (en:Mansilla+Tuñón) and two other sister projects omits this. The others use their own language forms of the word Architect[2]. KTo288 (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- If we were to apply the policy "Creator names should be in form most commonly found in English literature." (Commons:Language policy) the actual category name should be Mansilla+Tuñón Architects.--KTo288 (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- (cfd) I would prefer to have spaces between + sign and add Architects. The proper name is stated in their official blog "Luis M. Mansilla (1959-2012) and Emilio Tuñón Alvarez (1959) founded Mansilla + Tuñón Architects in 1992." The error comes from this "MUSAC - Contemporary Art Museum of Castilla y León (Museo Nacional de Arte Contemporáneo de Castilla y León) in León, Spain by Luis M. Mansilla, Emilio Tuñón/Mansilla+Tuñón (Madrid)". Mansilla + Tuñón or M+T are shorter versions. Enladrillado (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- The usual compromise in this kind of thing is for the gallery to be named in the native language, and for the Category to take the English form. Personally I'm not bothered by spaces so long as everyone know what the category is.--KTo288 (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- @KTo288: Feel free to implement the changes per above. Thanks! Enladrillado (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Enladrillado: , just to be clear, Category:Mansilla + Tuñón Architects, for the category would be acceptable.--KTo288 (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, have a nice day! Enladrillado (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Enladrillado: , just to be clear, Category:Mansilla + Tuñón Architects, for the category would be acceptable.--KTo288 (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- @KTo288: Feel free to implement the changes per above. Thanks! Enladrillado (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- The usual compromise in this kind of thing is for the gallery to be named in the native language, and for the Category to take the English form. Personally I'm not bothered by spaces so long as everyone know what the category is.--KTo288 (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- (cfd) I would prefer to have spaces between + sign and add Architects. The proper name is stated in their official blog "Luis M. Mansilla (1959-2012) and Emilio Tuñón Alvarez (1959) founded Mansilla + Tuñón Architects in 1992." The error comes from this "MUSAC - Contemporary Art Museum of Castilla y León (Museo Nacional de Arte Contemporáneo de Castilla y León) in León, Spain by Luis M. Mansilla, Emilio Tuñón/Mansilla+Tuñón (Madrid)". Mansilla + Tuñón or M+T are shorter versions. Enladrillado (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Mansilla + Tuñón Architects with a redirect from Category:Mansilla + Tuñón Arquitectos - Themightyquill (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Category:Gates Frontiers Fund Colorado Collection within the Carol M. Highsmith Archive, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
[edit]totally duplicate to Category:Gates Frontiers Fund Colorado Collection within the Carol M. Highsmith Archive.-- Mackpie (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Gates Frontiers Fund Colorado Collection within the Carol M. Highsmith Archive. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Propose deletion. It has been renamed Category:Coats of arms of the House of Bourbon-Anjou, following normal standards. Has a typo with Borbon instead of Bourbon (plus in Spanish it is Borbón anyway) so is unlikely to be useful as a redirect. Wikimandia (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/05/Category:Monuments historiques in France by former region. Århus tagged this category {{speedydelete|region dissolved}} 15:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC). I disagree and !vote Keep, as category redirects are standard practice. — Jeff G. ツ 15:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- So if I just created Category:City quarters in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes <for the existing region> from scratch (without moving from Category:City quarters in Rhône-Alpes <the dissolved region>, which simply makes life easier) there would not be a problem because Category:City quarters in Rhône-Alpes would just be empty and not a redirect? That's ridiculous and makes my life harder. (Unless User:Jeff G. joins in and helps substantially in implementing the regional reform in France almost two years later (!) by creating myriads of new categories by *not* moving them from existing categories for no-longer-existing regions.) --Århus (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Århus: From my reading, Jeff G. is suggesting that Category:City quarters in Rhône-Alpes should be redirected to Category:City quarters in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes rather than simply deleted. Have I misunderstood? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: The sequence was that Århus first moved old Category:City quarters in Rhône-Alpes to new Category:City quarters in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (and in the process created the category redirect) 15:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC), and then (the only part I object to) asked for speedy deletion of old Category:City quarters in Rhône-Alpes four minutes later at 15:23. Leaving redirects from correct old names of political divisions behind after a move is standard practice here per COM:REDCAT. — Jeff G. ツ 14:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Århus: From my reading, Jeff G. is suggesting that Category:City quarters in Rhône-Alpes should be redirected to Category:City quarters in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes rather than simply deleted. Have I misunderstood? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: That's what I thought? @Århus: Any reason we can't leave the redirect? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Empty categories can successfully be speedydeleted, redirects apparently not. So you are forcing a different work strategy on me (creating the up-to-date categories from scratch not by moving). We're talking about literally thousands of categories where you want to keep the redirects. Which I find superfluous and plain silly. By the way, it's not the "old name of a political division", it's the name of a no-longer-existing political division, keeping this is as sensible as keeping a redirect from Category:City quarters in Prussia to Category:City quarters in Germany. Why should one want this? --Århus (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- {@Århus: As far as I can see, we're talking about a change that is very very recent. It's not impossible that some people adding or sorting images may not be up on the newest categories. If you find leaving such a redirect problematic, I suggest you contribute to the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Kirche im Eichsfeld or Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Coats of arms of Normandy, where whole category trees for historic and current sub-divisions continue to exist in parallel. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Both categories you refer to are totally different from the one discussed here: one is about an established geographical region, the other is about coats-of-arms of an historical entity. That's not what is at issue here: we're talking about category trees with thousands of sub-sub-sub-sub-categories for each and everything in dissolved political entities (without any history dating before 1960). Of course, there should be a category for Rhône-Alpes and also sub-categories for maps of Rhône-Alpes and coats-of-arms of Rhône-Alpes and politicians of Rhône-Alpes, i.e., for everything that has to do with Rhône-Alpes in a straightforward and direct manner. But the city-quarter category has nothing to do with the dissolved region, these city quarters are in no way specific to Rhône-Alpes, they just happened to be located in this territory until 2015. Categories (and redirects) for former political entities are no good way of splitting up major country/state-categories. This is – rightly so – done by current political divisions. --Århus (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- {@Århus: As far as I can see, we're talking about a change that is very very recent. It's not impossible that some people adding or sorting images may not be up on the newest categories. If you find leaving such a redirect problematic, I suggest you contribute to the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Kirche im Eichsfeld or Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Coats of arms of Normandy, where whole category trees for historic and current sub-divisions continue to exist in parallel. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Empty categories can successfully be speedydeleted, redirects apparently not. So you are forcing a different work strategy on me (creating the up-to-date categories from scratch not by moving). We're talking about literally thousands of categories where you want to keep the redirects. Which I find superfluous and plain silly. By the way, it's not the "old name of a political division", it's the name of a no-longer-existing political division, keeping this is as sensible as keeping a redirect from Category:City quarters in Prussia to Category:City quarters in Germany. Why should one want this? --Århus (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I just can't see any possible harm in leaving the redirects in place. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support leaving redirect, per others. Wikimandia (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Kept as a redirect as per Jeff. --rimshottalk 23:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
All sub-categories should be "Romani people" and not "Roma people", as per Romani people. Zoupan (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support Yes, that makes sense to me. Romani is the broader term, so it makes sense to use that. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- User:Zoupan, you're right. You have my support. I'm expecting to see you contributing also to Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/08/Category:Gitanos. Indeed what you suggested above was also in my agenda, but I wanted to go step by step. --E4024 (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- No opposition. @Ruthven: Could you please help make this massmove with commons delinker? Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 08:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Should be merged with Category:Moors, or at least have their respective scopes, hierarchy, and contents sorted out. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- OK. -- Ji-Elle (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- I think a merge is in order. Tuvalkin, do you have a preference which way it goes? Category:Moors (people) helps avoid confusion with Moorlands... - Themightyquill (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- I agree: Category:Moors should be transformed in a disambiguation cat. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- No opposition, Tuvalkin, if you want to go ahead with this. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I
- I think a merge is in order. Tuvalkin, do you have a preference which way it goes? Category:Moors (people) helps avoid confusion with Moorlands... - Themightyquill (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Merged and Category:Moors converted to disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
This category is redundant to Category:Bridges in Australia by state or territory. There is no need and little utility in a separate category for Australian states alone Mattinbgn (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. Merge to Category:Bridges in Australia by state or territory and delete or redirect. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I see your points, but the problem is that mixing state and territories (in the cat name especially) is somewhat unique to Australia and does not allow for side navigation to other countries with states in the Ozeanias. I know it is (partially!) redundant, but imho it would instead be incorrect to just rename state or territory to state. The core problem is within Template:Countries of Oceania that does not provide for this special case. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- There are two ends to take on for a solution: either redirect state or territory to state (and have territories included there without explicit mention in the cat title), or supplement Module:Countries (add sth, like:
if country=="Australia" and suffix=="state" then suffix="state or territory" end). --Cmuelle8 (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)- I've put some code into Module:Countries and Module:Countries/Oceania to deal with the issue, it replaces a suffix "by state" by "by state or territory". Suffix "by state size" e.g. is not affected, but Module:Countries/Oceania allows for easy expansion. (In a former version this was coded to replace occurrence of the word "state" for arbitrary suffixes regarding Australia).
- An issue remains. If Template:Countries of Oceania is used on x in Australia by state or territory pages, the suffix parameter must take value by state only, i.e. the template does not check atm if it was called from an Australia related page to do the inverse replacement from by state or territory to by state. However, authors will easily recognize this, since the navigation bar will miss all other states besides Australia in such case. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about here. Why would Template:Countries of Oceania: need to be used on a category such as Category:Transport in Australia by state or territory? I don't see why we'd need to navigate between that and subdivisions of other countries in Oceania (especially the US, with only one state there): it doesn't seem meaningful. Or am I really not understanding your point? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- There are two ends to take on for a solution: either redirect state or territory to state (and have territories included there without explicit mention in the cat title), or supplement Module:Countries (add sth, like:
- This may not seem meaningful currently, as current choices are limited, but this may very well change in the future.
- Category:Bridges in Australia by state or territory
- Category:Bridges in the United States by state
- Category:Bridges in Fiji by division (subnational administrative equivalent)
- Category:Bridges in Kiribati by unit (subnational administrative equivalent)
- and so on ..
- This is useful to offer side navigation in subcategories to by <state (or subnational equivalent)> by country cats. Depending on where you enter the category tree, it may be an aid, or stay unnoticed at all. Since it does not block other ways to use the cat-tree it is one way to navigate among others. It may also help to stay oriented when editing or navigating metacat trees. For users, it eases comparative usage patterns, i.e. comparing building or transport entities across subnationally organized territories (if you correctly apply this to subcategories of entities this will aid answering questions like "What subnational areas have media related to suspension bridges?") - you can do this without offering this navigational aid, but its easier with.
- In other parts of the world, it might be easier to see where this aims at (since subnational entities are more often consistently named "state" (or "region"), rather than "state", "territory", "unit", "division", etc.. in Oceania. The broader aim is to side navigate between subnational administrative levels, or in other words (one administrative step down from the country level). --Cmuelle8 (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- This may not seem meaningful currently, as current choices are limited, but this may very well change in the future.
- Following en:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania it might also make sense to differentiate between countries with dependences in Oceania and countries in Oceania for the navigational Template:Countries of Oceania. Either by simply starting a new line in its output or by migrating parts to a new Template:Countries with territories in Oceania (or Template:Countries with dependences in Oceania). This might resolve the current lineup you're uncomfortable with. After all, (quote: especially the US, with only one state there) this is an issue that exists regardless of the suffix parameter usage. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Mentioning two types of places is not unique to Australia. Category:Categories by first-level administrative country subdivision shows similar naming for Canada and India. Sometimes I wish the United States categories were "by state or territory" because people keep mixing them anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Redirected by Cmuelle8 years ago. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Wrong name, rename to "Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Aygabats, Shirak" and delete this one. Kareyac (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Aygebats with an 'e' seems to be an alternate spelling. I'd leave a redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Renamed to Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Aygabats, Shirak. I also created Category:Aygabats with a redirect from Category:Aygebats. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
merge into Category:River islands of Serbia. Zoupan (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- The quills that will contribute here: Some of the relevant cats use "in" and some others "of". As frontiers change frequently in Europe, "in" looks better to me, but have got no objection to "of" either. We should have them all worded similarly. --E4024 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- All the respective parent categories in Category:Islands by country are "Islands of X" not "Islands in X" so let's adopt of for consistency? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 02:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
It is not good to have a cathegory dedicated only to children. There is no need to distinguish naturists by age, unless a voyeuristic desire. This is not a cathegory of anathomy in medicine for studying differences in bodies. One section dedicated to naturist people is enough. Thanks 95.239.108.252 16:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support After all, these are pictures that include naked children, it doesn't mean they've made a concious decision to be naturists. Better to upmerge to Category:Nude children. If the photos portray naturist adults then they can be categorised in the adult naturist categories. Sionk (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Sionk. These are not kids who are actual naturists themselves. Wikimandia (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose There is Category:Christian children, even if they are no kids who are actual Christians themselves. There is also Category:Barefoot children, which distinguish barefoot people by age. There is also Category:Children wearing swimwear, and so on. Those category are very common, they just help to categorize pictures, it should not be different because it is about naturism Notorono (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC).- Oppose This images depict what is stated "naturists children", so there is no need to upmerge. Tm (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus to delete or upmerge Estopedist1 (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
To be merged with Category:Building of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina Dans (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Why, it's two different buildings, with different institutions located in each of them, and both of them are properly categorized by official building names. Maybe only, if you have an idea, to make a additional parent category for both of them. --Smooth O (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The result was keep. Different buildings Estopedist1 (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Redundant with Category:Audio files of vocal music ? Themightyquill (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe not. Vocal music that could be considered not to be a song might include the non-aria parts of an opera, short sung pieces of church services, and advertising jingles. I haven't looked to see if we have any of those in the category being discussed. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Auntof6: Enwiki has both: en:Songs and en:Category:Vocal music; should be different concepts--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Enwiki is, as usual, less helpful here than existing categorization on commons. Category:Songs is a sub-category of Category:Vocal music, so I've made Category:Audio files of songs a subcategory of Category:Audio files of vocal music. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
duplicate of Category:Workshops (meetings) Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- It is not the duplication. For the rest of discussion, please use Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/10/Category:Workshops (seminars). --Clusternote (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/10/Category:Workshops (seminars) Estopedist1 (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be a duplicate of Category:Demographic charts. Thus delete it? With redirect? Or this category should become at least a sub- or super category of it. Torsch (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Given the content, we might rename Category:Population diagrams to Category:Demographic charts by language, move it to Category:Demographic charts and rename the sub-categories accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Redirecting the nominated category to Demographic charts since they are not diagrams in the English language. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The cat is defined as a cat for "elevated plateaus" and it has two subcats such as Category:Highlands in Japan and Category:Highland of Iceland. Interestingly there are several "highland" subcats in the Iceland chapter. Therefore why is it called "Highland of Iceland" and not "Highlands in ..." as in the cat of Japan? OTOH, the highest peak of Mount Fujiyama, Japan's highest point, is 3776 m above sea level. Therefore there are -or should be- many "plateaus" that deserve the English translation "highlands" than in the cases of Japan and Iceland. (Certainly we have many pictures of those others also.) We should review this categorization (Plateaus-Highlands) and also the singular/plural, "in-of" things. Cordially. E4024 (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I noticed these details just after moving Category:Batabat yaylası -although very probably wrongly- to Category:Batabat Valley. Maybe within this discussion we can also find a better name for that cat. (BTW I added a cat to Category:Ayder. Ayder is probably the most beautiful "yayla" in Turkey.) --E4024 (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment "Highlands" is a proper noun in English, identifying the Scottish Highlands. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of "Highlands" is "the chiefly mountainous northern part of Scotland north of a line connecting the Firth of Clyde and the Firth of Tay".[3]
- ↑ "Highlands | region, Scotland, United Kingdom". Encyclopedia Britannica.
| Camera location |  | View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap |  |
|---|
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of plateau is very different from highlands.[4]
- a usually extensive land area having a relatively level surface raised sharply above adjacent land on at least one side :tableland
- a region of little or no change in a graphic representation; a relatively stable level, period, or condition
- a level of attainment or achievement e.g. the 500-point plateau
Kalbbes (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @E4024 and Kalbbes: I guess we have two options:
- reserving to the geographical concept (= en:highland and en:Category:Highlands)
- transforming into the disambiguation page (= en:highlands)
--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
No consensus on what to do with the category, default to keep as it is. However, after looking into the Wikipedia category and because of the fact that highlands are landforms, I'm renaming "highlands in" to "highlands of". --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
What is known by many as the Atatürk Anıtı (Monument of Atatürk), in Samsun,Turkey, was imposed as "Onur Anıtı" (Monument of Pride) in TR:WP and has been wrongly translated to English as "Statue". I am bored (not really tired) of these unilateral impositions. I hope someone will tell the creator of this cat the difference between a monument and a statue that is part of it. Of course translating "onur" as "honor" instead of pride is a mistake that only people who have a comprehension of both Turkish and English may understand. I guess there is a "sound trick" that makes some people -including those guys and gals in Google Translate- think "onur" is "honor". The latter one is "şeref" in Turkish language. Onur is both pride and what we call "gurur" with an older word. (Please see "honour" in Cambridge English-Turkish Dictionary. The first word given is "şeref", onur comes only as third and the last.) To feel proud of some achievement, like the Atatürk Revolution, should be expressed with the word pride in English. E4024 (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Onur Anıtı ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Firstly, you are asking me to accept what I don't like, a supposed "official name", because the creator of the page in TR:WP supposedly confirmed it by mail with some culture officer in Samsun. I know Samsun quite well. This monument is known as "Atatürk Anıtı" by all (well, minus two people :). Secondly, using names in other languages for things we can easily translate does not attract me. The "original language" choice makes things invisible, or, if you wish so, "less visible"; and this monument is a precious work of art by a renown Austrian sculptor. I prefer to use Category:Monument of Atatürk or Category:Monument of Atatürk, Samsun or anything similar to these. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- You may have to offer more evidence than "I like X better", E4024. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- You mean something like "I like XX better"? :) The fact that the monument is known by all as "Atatürk Anıtı" (Monument of Atatürk, Atatürk Monument, or Monument to Atatürk, whatsoever in English) is more than enough. (You should also see the pic of a cute blond kid of around 2 years of age sitting on the lawn before that monument that I keep at home; this is in parentheses of course.) --E4024 (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Like evidence that it's "known by all as Atatürk Anıtı" =) - Themightyquill (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- You mean something like "I like XX better"? :) The fact that the monument is known by all as "Atatürk Anıtı" (Monument of Atatürk, Atatürk Monument, or Monument to Atatürk, whatsoever in English) is more than enough. (You should also see the pic of a cute blond kid of around 2 years of age sitting on the lawn before that monument that I keep at home; this is in parentheses of course.) --E4024 (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support move to Atatürk Anıtı, Samsun (or something similar that includes Samsun, as there are other monuments of pride elsewhere in Turkey.) Seems clear that Atatürk Anıtı is its official name or the name by which it is known, as it's referred to that way by the government of Samsun and media [5][6] Wikimandia (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Forget everything above, "statue" is "heykel"; this is an "anıt" (or "abide" in older Turkish); which means a "monument". It has an equestrian "statue" of Atatürk but not only that... --E4024 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Themightyquill: although enwiki uses the name en:Statue of Honor, I suggest to move the nominated category to Category:Statue of Honor, Samsun, and Category:Statue of Honor to be transformed into the DAB--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Late contribution By sheer accident I came across this discussion. As I like contemplating languages, Turkish being one of them, I was struck by part of the opening argument: “Of course translating "onur" as "honor" instead of pride is a mistake that only people who have a comprehension of both Turkish and English may understand.” In reaction I thought more people then just “the Google Translate guys and gals” might consider it possible that the two ARE related, I for one thought so too. Years ago I have read with pleasure a book by what must be considered quite an authority on the Turkish language. The book was “The Turkish language reform. A catastrophic success”, by Geoffrey Lewis. Oxford professor, author of an excellent grammar of the Turkish language and, according to the Wikipedia, Vice-President, 1972–2003, President, 2003–2008 of the Anglo-Turkish Society, recipient of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Turkey, 1998, and many more honours. I thought the book might have information about “onur”. And indeed, in my copy on page 149, in a discussion on how subtleties in the pre-reform language were lost as a result of that reform, he informs us about that word. Before doing so he discusses the pro’s and con’s of maintaining Ottoman synonyms, quoting Ömer Aksoy (Gerçeği, 1982, pg. 23) as being in favour of “impoverishment” and Fatma Ozkan (Türkçe Yanlaşları üzerine in Türk Dili, pg. 974-81) as a voice on the other side. Lewis translates from the latter: “If a language possesses a plurality of words to express a concept, a thing, or an entity, fine distinctions of meaning eventually arise among them.” He provides some examples, and in a longer list there it is: “Is it a gain or a loss for our language to replace şeref [honour], haysiyet [self-respect], gurur [pride], kibir [self-esteem], and izzetinefis [dignity] by just one onur [the words between [] are by Lewis, probably his most correct translations, and are not in the original Turkish]. He then speaks of the word some more: “Onur, originally the French honour, [the book was first published in 1999, so the Google Translate guys and gals cannot have inspired Lewis] is not a creation of the language reform, though its Öztürkçe status seems to be due to its being plugged by the TRT, the state broadcasting service. It is shown in Tarama Sözlüğü (1963-77) as used in several places in the vilayets of Bilecik, Bolu, Ankara, Kayseri and Hatay, for kabir ‘self-esteem’ and çalım ‘swagger’. For ‘personal honour’, ordinary people‘s speech retains namus, originally the Greek nomos. (Oddly enough onur appears in the Oxford English dictionary as an obsolete form of honour.) I finish this part with a quote from the same page: “English has no exact equivalent of the lovely Ottoman word selika ‘the ability to speak well and write well. Nor has modern Turkish. Türkçe Sözlük (1988) marks it as antiquated.’ Some more: During my search I found on the relevant page of the Samsun website “Samsun’un Onur Anıtı olan bu heykelin kaidesiz yüksekliği 4.75 metre, kaideli 8.85 metre. Büyük bir kaide üzerinde şahlanan bir at üstünde, Atatürk, bütün heybeti ile görülüyor. Gururlu bir anlatımla batıya ve çok uzaklara dikilen bakışları azim dolu. Şahlanan atın üzerinde dimdik bir vücut oturmakta.” The Google team translated that as “The height of this statue, which is the Honor Monument of Samsun, is 4.75 meters without a pedestal and 8.85 meters with a pedestal. On a horse rearing on a large pedestal, Atatürk is seen in all his majesty. With a proud expression, looking to the west and far away, his gaze is full of determination. An upright body sits on the prancing horse.” So there is that honour again. And: Am I the only one who thinks the term “Monument of Pride” is silly? I think no English speaker would come up with such a combination of words. It sounds ironic, it reminds me of the great English caricaturists like Hogarth and Rowlandson, rather than of, let’s say, an honour bestowed on someone or on some monumental historic event. I tried Googling “Monument of Pride”, and found only references to the Gay Pride movement. As I myself laid the first official “gay” wreath ever at the national war memorial in Amsterdam during Remembrance Day 1971 (with another guy, by invitation from the authorities, televised and in presence of the queen, government, general staff, the works), I am not offended by such an association. But apart from the Turkish attitudes: it just doesn’t sound right. A monument is in honour of, in memory of a person, a moment in time, not “of pride”. “Statue of honour” reminds me of ancient gods, personifications of honour, pride, whatever. To put the honour in front, as an adjective, as Google just did, satisfies me more. Pride Monument of Samsun would be, I think, a bridge too far. Just my 2 cents. Dosseman (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Notes | I'm closing this as stale. It was started in 2017, the last comment was in 2022, and there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus either way. Someone is free to start a new discussion about it with more concise arguments to see if that can change at some point in the future though. This CfD is clearly DOA though. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC) | |||