Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2019/10

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:5th Anniversary Umbrella Movement – 傘運五周年, 26 September 2019 (Admiralty, Hong Kong)

Wrong date, please delete Eissink (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eissink: Closed (bad name; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sanders (bus company)

Wrong, incomplete company name. Nothing links here, so no need to keep this. Eissink (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Implausible redirect. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:World

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGkyudNqcKQ 2001:4898:80E8:B:528E:FB8F:866C:7B8A 15:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed (spam/nonsense) Josh (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Princess Margarita of Romania

To delete this category with the wrong name and title as Former discussion seems not to have been taken into consideration and new category with correct name has been created ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialArchivesRU: Closed (needless duplicate discussion to existing open discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Princess Margarita of Romania) Josh (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Комета Каталина

Empty, description makes no sense Booth sift 00:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boothsift: Closed (category has already been deleted) Josh (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Exponential function

see Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/10/Category:Exponentiation Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jochen Burghardt: Closed (subsumed into Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/10/Category:Exponentiation) Josh (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cycadophyta botanical illustrations

www.bing.com 2001:4898:80E8:B:987E:9AC9:FCA6:6518 10:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed (spam/nonsense) Josh (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mao Zedong's calligraphy

Per COM:TOO China. Calligraphy works are not simple shapes. Mao Zedong died in 1976 (43 years ago), so all of his calligraphy should be copyrighted. Njzjz (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Not "all". This have been discussed for many times. A few of Mao Zedong's calligraphy works and signatures are kept on Wikimedia Commons not because of {{PD-text}}, {{PD-signature}}, or Mao's death date + 50 years, but because of {{PD-PRC-exempt}}/uncopyrightable official document (e.g. File:Mao Zedong signature.svg) or first publication date + 50 years (e.g. File:People's Daily logo.svg). --Tomchen1989 (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomchen1989: I see. Withdraw the request.--Njzjz (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomchen1989 and Njzjz: Closed (withdrawn by nominator) Josh (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Simply Harmonie (ship,1992)

the comment by user:Ein Dahmer: ship with this MMSI has another design! Estopedist1 (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eine Schiffsummer habe ich an der Yacht nicht gesehen es war bloß der Name Simply Harmonie und die Handesflagge von Malta am Heck angebracht. Ich habe ca. 25 Online- Kataloge von Verleihern des Staates Malta durch gesehen. Wenn ich eine falsche NUmmer genommen habe es ein Fehler und den entferne ich jetzt. --Fiver, der Hellseher (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ich bin für löschen der Seite und habe daher einen Schnelllöschantrag gestellt. --Fiver, der Hellseher (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1 and Fiver, der Hellseher: Closed (category has been deleted) Josh (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mathematical radicals

1 Microsoft W 2001:4898:80E8:2:EE54:7C9C:8E82:5CD9 18:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed (nonsense/spam) Josh (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Books by Manilal Dwivedi

I mistakenly created this categor without checking that there is already Category:Works by Manilal Dwivedi exist. Please delete this. Gazal world (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazal world: Any problem with leaving a redirect to save the next user the same issue? Josh (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Hi, I have no problem. Thank you. --Gazal world (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazal world: Closed (no objections; creator request; redirect to Category:Works by Manilal Dwivedi ) Josh (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Chuck Grassley town hall meeting in Winterset (August 12, 2009)

nANCY pELOSI could.....recuse herself from the position in the event all in line are found 2600:1702:1280:A4B0:4081:2103:99BC:5932 22:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close: not a valid request. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:O'Mega (ship, 1985)

baliw ka ba 112.205.148.142 08:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: nonsense. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Subduction zones in North America

south bend wa 2601:602:9701:EE30:3D69:588D:29D9:78E4 21:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Nonsense. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:MovePage

Delete Xxlstier (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xxlstier: I believe that {{Vd}} is what you were looking for, not {{Delete}}. Josh (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally created. Deleted in favour of Category:Caló d'es Pou. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Barefoot Dutch Woman Breastfeeding

Superfluous category with a non-regular layout Eissink (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Deleted - empty category. ~riley (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Jamshid bin Abdullah

Incorrect name category TaleofTalisman (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted in favour of Category:Jamshid ben Abdallah‎. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Pseudonyms

the description says "This category includes authors who have published books, written under an assumed name." which doesn't really matches the title (a more suitable name would be "Category:Pseudonymous writers"... which already exists). With this name, the category should contains only pseudonyms (=names, not persons, which are already contained in the more explicit Category:People known under pseudonyms). Honestly I don't see how this category could be of any use (the only one would be a category of pseudonym shared by at least two people). Rhadamante (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have published under several pen names. And some wrote under a fake name which cannot be traced easily. IMHO, this category could be useful in such scenarios. But I have no objection to deletion. Genium (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Some people have published under several pen names". Yes they have. But I don't understand what it has to do with a specific category "Pseudonyms". Unless you're talking about gathering in this category the different aliases of a writer, who would be redirections to the the main category (and by the way, if this category is for writers only, it should named "pen names" or something like that. Writers are not he only one to use pseudonyms...).

But my main point is, a category named "pseudonyms" should contain names, not persons, the same way Category:Male names or Category:Female names do, especially if this category is a subcategory of category:Given names (which is already bad, these are not given names, these are full names...). And, beside redirections of a pseudonym to a main category (named under a birth name), which is almost never the case (most of the time we use the pseudonym to name a category), I don't see how we could fill a category "pseudonyms" that would not be a duplicate of "People known under pseudonyms". Rhadamante (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rhadamante here : I fail to see how this category is different from Category:People_known_under_pseudonyms (in Commons context). --Hsarrazin (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my understanding:

E. Michael Mendelson (d:Q66402210) is a People known under pseudonyms.

Nathaniel Tarn (d:Q6969885), a pseudonym
Michel Tavriger (d:Q66403905), a pseudonym

And:

Georges Ponsot (d:Q8308559) is not a People known under pseudonyms

Madeleine d'Ardennes (d:Q19543854), likely a pseudonym
Jane du Barrois (d:Q3161855), likely a pseudonym

But I fully trust Hsarrazin, so the category should be deleted. Genium (talk)

@Genium: I understand what you mean, but Commons categories are not the same as wikidata items, even if a lot of them are linked ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently empty, which makes this discussion moot. I've tagged it as empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Factory of the White Star

Empty category: replaced by category De Witte Ster Ecritures (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecritures: Is there harm in this remaining a redirect to avoid confusion in the future? Josh (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaummgartner: : absolutely no harm. It was probably a case of me being to eager to get everything exactly right. Redirect is okay; apologies for causing you some extra work! Ecritures (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: redirect acceptable. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Camille (1936 film)

فیلم سکس آمریکا 31.2.242.234 00:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason to change or delete the category. Josh (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close: no rationale given for discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Agricultural vehicles in Iran

Empty category. Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close: cat has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Science and technology in the European Union by country

	Category:Science and technology in the European Union by country	Delete

Delete. Unnecessary overcategorization with Category:Science and technology in Europe by country. Themightyquill (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, as with other similar ones, this is just another grouping of 'by country' cats. Josh (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:President of the European Commission

Move to Category:Presidents of the European Commission (plural as standard naming convention) Themightyquill (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Presidents of the European Commission. If there's a future need for a more general category, it could go at Category:Presidency of the the European Commision - Themightyquill (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Icteridae in Russia

Icteridae is restricted to the Americas - there are no icterids in Russia. Spizaetus (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, since it is now empty as well. Rudolphous (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 21:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Military equipment of Russia by period

Excess and useless categorization. I think that all categories in this category are not needed, because:
Category:World War II military equipment of Russia = Category:Great Patriotic War equipment
Category:Post-World War II military equipment of Russia - "Post-World War II" is not correct criterion for categorisation, it not using for any other countries (see e.g. Category:Military equipment of the United States, Category:Military equipment of the United Kingdom, etc).
Also, all subcategories (as World War II infantry firearms of Russia, World War II infantry weapons of Russia, etc) of these categories are clearly excess. Лапоть (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. Use 'by year/decade/century' categories where time period needs to be defined. "Post-anything" names are not appropriate. Any of these 'periods' are pointless and imprecise. To be a 'World War II weapon', does that mean the weapon was made during World War II, designed for World War II, still in service during World War II, actually was used in World War II? All are valid, and different people will think of different ones as being the primary meaning of the phrase, which makes it pointless to categorize by it. I get why people think it makes sense, afterall how many books are there about 'World War II aircraft' or 'infantry weapons of the Vietnam War' or some such? But the scope of a book is wholly the decision of its author, and each can have their own criteria for what gets included in their book or not. We need a clear and concise way to define this and without one, we should not be using categories like this. I recommend we simply delete these and all similar categories, making sure content is appropriatly categorized. Josh (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Лапоть: Closed (no objections; delete 'by period' categories save for 'by year/decade/century' categories) Josh (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Charles University in Prague

This university is referred to in different forms across Commons categories. "Charles University" seems sufficient to identify it, but it goes alternately by "Charles University", "Univerzity Karlovy", "Charles University in Prague", etc. in different places. We should settle on one and rename categories as appropriate to match. ŠJů (talk · contribs) provided a list (from the above linked discussion) of some of the various uses. Josh (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English names with the city name:

English names without the city name:

Czech names with the city name:

Category:Výcvikové středisko Dobronice UK v Praze‎

Czech names without the city name:

	Category:Charles University in Prague	Move to/Rename as	Category:Charles University
	Josh (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I agree to

remove the city name from category names (3 categories?)
use the established English name for faculties and centres, if documentable (4 categories?)

As regards Category:Výcvikové středisko Univerzity Karlovy Dobronice (training centre in Dobronice), I used the full Czech official name as used at https://cuni.cz/UK-5198.html. I found not this centre at the English version of the official website (https://cuni.cz/UKEN-108.html), and used English translations a bit vary. --ŠJů (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Unified and moved. --ŠJů (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ŠJů: There are a couple that still have Charles University in () while most do not. Should they be changed to follow suit, or is it sufficient as-is? Josh (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ŠJů: Closed (no further action needed) Josh (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Two letter combinations (non-Latin)

“non-Latin” is unproductive. Better create Category:Two letter combinations by script, analagously to Category:Three letter combinations by script, move the subcategories there and the files to Category:Two letter combinations. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "by script" is a great suggestion. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objections for two weeks, renamed. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Images of The Wiggles

Redundant to The Wiggles - all we have are images. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Nem con, redundant. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Rail vehicles of Great Britain

What's the purpose of this whole Great Britain tree? A border down the Irish Sea? Roy17 (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion re this going back several years: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:Locomotives of Great Britain. Yes, in railway terms there is a border down the middle of the Irish Sea. The gauge is different in {England, Wales, Scotland} from that in {Ireland, Northern Ireland}. Thus there is significant interworking within these groups, but not between them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK I didnt see the other cfd because I went straight to the top cat.--Roy17 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially the same as Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:Locomotives of Great Britain.--Roy17 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Azines

This term is ambiguous. It could mean an N-containing heterocycle or a C=N-N=C group. Commons currently has a single category that contains both, and it's linked (via wikidata) to the heterocycle meaning. Some languages' Wikipedia sites use "(heterocycle)" to disambiguate the former (leaving the latter as the simple name) whereas others disambiguate the latter as "(hydrazine)" and some have the former as the simple name.

I propose having both commons cats have explicitly disambiguated names and the simple name be a disambiguation page. That way nobody coming here from any language will be confused by which goes where. Incidentally, IUPAC only supports "azine" as a suffix of other chemical names, so if we keep a simple name for it, I think it would be "-azine" not "azine". DMacks (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right, we should have these two classes separated. What do you propose as names for such categories?

Wostr (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with anything that incorporates "hydrazine" in one and "heterocycle" in the other. DMacks (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support categories here have to be less ambiguous but if the topics are sufficiently conceptual then Category:Azines could be a container category for both. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguated as suggested. Ed (Edgar181) 15:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Nothern cemetery

Es muß "Northern cemetery" heißen. Eva Dahl (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Moved to Category:Northern cemetery. --Achim (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:African Americans

1 Microsoft Way, Redmond 2001:4898:80E8:3:16E:3ACC:1AE:4C31 19:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, nonsense nomination. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Exponentiation

should be renamed to distinguish from Category:Exponential functions - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jochen Burghardt: Do you have a suggestion? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: No, not really. Even worse, I just saw I placed the CfD on the wrong category; I actually meant to distinguish Category:Exponential functions from its singular form, Category:Exponential function. The current hierarchy is this:

Category:Exponentiation (11 files; seems to be about the binary operation $x^{y}$ $x^{y}$ )
- Category:Exponential functions (133 files, many subcategories; maybe intended to hold everything related to $e^{x}$ $e^{x}$ , such as hyperbolic functions $sinh(x)=(e^{x}-e^{-x})/2$ $sinh(x)=(e^{x}-e^{-x})/2$ , etc.)
  - Category:Exponential function (74 files; maybe intended to hold media about $e^{x}$ , where $e$ is Euler's number 2.718281828...)

Maybe, at least two of them should be joined? - I don't know.

For now, I'll just place a CfD on Category:Exponential function, linking to here, so all 3 categories can be discussed together. - Sorry for my confusion. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CfD on Category:Exponential function:

Done. Both CfDs should eventually be closed simultaneously. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jochen Burghardt and Themightyquill: I have subsumed the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/10/Category:Exponential function into this one so that all banners point to the same place (added one to Category:Exponential functions as well). This better serves the goal of discussing all three in one place. Josh (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No merger, maybe move. "The exponential function" (singular form and with article "the") usually only refers to the "natural exponential function" ( $f(x)=\exp(x)=e^{x}$ ), which has base e, while "exponential functions" (plural) may have any base ( $f(x)=b^{x}$ ). For more discussion, see the relevant section of "Talk:Exponential function" on English Wikipedia and this edit summary of "Exponential functions" on English Wikipedia. Category:Exponentiation refers to Wikidata:Q33456 (exponentiation), Category:Exponential functions refers to Wikidata:Q168698 (exponential function(s)), and Category:Exponential function refers to Wikidata:Q47306354 (natural exponential function). These three categories are different and should not be merged. Probably Category:Exponential function can be moved to Category:Natural exponential function for clarification. --Neo-Jay (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Neo-Jay: Thanks for the explanation. I'm afraid the distinction between Category:Exponentiation (covering the binary function $f(x,y)=x^{y}$ ) and Category:Exponential functions (covering the unary functions $f_{b}(y)=b^{y}$ for all $b$ ) is too subtle to be understood by commons users. However, I still don't have a constructive suggestion for another category structure (I looked at Category:Multiplication and at Category:Trigonometric functions for an inspiring analogy, but I didn't find one). Maybe, we should keep everything as it is, for now, except for the clarifying renaming you suggested; and we should add your explanations on the category pages (or in wikidata?). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jochen Burghardt: In my understanding, exponentiation is a binary operation ( $b^{n}$ , Category:Exponentiation), and is used in both exponential functions ( $f(x)=b^{x}$ , Category:Exponential functions) and power functions ( $f(x)=x^{n}$ , Category:Power and root functions). So Category:Exponential functions is a subcategory of Category:Exponentiation, and they cannot be merged. I have added English explanations to Category:Exponentiation and Category:Exponential functions. Do you think that they are acceptable? Please feel free to change them. --Neo-Jay (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Neo-Jay: Thanks again. In order to make the distinction more explicit, I suggest the following text:

"Exponentiation is the binary operation

f(x,y)=x^{y}

. For the unary function

f(x)=b^{x}

, for some fixed

b

, see Category:Exponential functions. For the unary function

f(x)=e^{x}

, where

e

is Euler's number, see Category:Natural exponential function."

and accordingly at the other categories. I omitted your

a

, since I expect many composed functions (like

b^{x}+c,b^{x^{c}}

, ...) to be placed in Category:Exponential functions, similar to Category:Trigonometric functions (we have even mixed exp/trig files, e.g. File:Division sin(x); sinh(x).png), and there doesn't exist an expression for a most general form. Instead, category XXX is tacitly understood (maybe we should mention that in the explanations) to cover all expressions containing an XXX function. - If there is no objection, I'd modify the pages, rename Category:Exponential function, and close this discussion. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jochen Burghardt: Looks great to me. I only suggest expressing exponentiation as simply $b^{n}$ , not $f(x,y)=x^{y}$ , although both of them are acceptable. My concern is that the distinction between $f(x,y)=x^{y}$ (exponentiation) and $f(x)=b^{x}$ (exponential functions) might be, as you indicated previously, "too subtle to be understood by commons users". Probably $b^{n}$ (exponentiation) vs. $f(x)=b^{x}$ (exponential functions) is more distinguishable. And by doing so, we can just call exponential function and natural exponential function as simply "function", and do not need to mention that they are "unary functions". What do you think of it? --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Neo-Jay: Ok, except that I'd suggest to use $x^{y}$ rather than $b^{n}$ in Exponentiation. The reason is, that then "x,y" are tacitly used as variables (function arguments), and "b,c,e" as constants. We would then present a distinction $x^{y}$ (Category:Exponentiation) vs. $b^{x}$ (Category:Exponential functions) vs. $x^{c}$ (Category:Power and root functions); this should be understandable to both mathematical physicists (who admittedly might be confused by "f(x,y)", "unary", "binary", etc.) and mathematical logicians (who would expect that terminology, but should be able to infer them from the variable/constant names). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jochen Burghardt: I use $b^{n}$ instead of $x^{y}$ because I take exponentiation as simply operation, not function (although operation can be defined as function). And an operation does not need to be written as $f(x)=...$ or $f(x,y)=...$ , while a function does. In my view, $x^{y}$ (or $b^{n}$ ) vs. $f(x)=b^{x}$ vs. $f(x)=x^{c}$ is more distinguishable than $x^{y}$ vs. $b^{x}$ vs. $x^{c}$ . But your suggestion is fine to me. I do not object. You may go ahead and close this discussion. Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing with the following consensus:

Keep the category structure unchanged, for now.
Rename Category:Exponential function to Category:Natural exponential function, to achieve a better distinction from Category:Exponential functions.
Add text descriptions to delimitate all involved categories from each other:
- Category:Exponentiation: en:Exponentiation is the binary operation $x^{y}$ , where $x$ is called the base, and $y$ the exponent.
- Category:Exponential functions: en:Exponential functions are functions of the form $f(x)=b^{x}$ , for some fixed $b$ .
- Category:Natural exponential function: The en:Natural exponential function is the function $f(x)=e^{x}$ , where $e$ is Euler's number.
- Category:Power and root functions: en:Power functions are functions of the form $f(x)=x^{c}$ , for some fixed $c$ ; when $c$ is the reciprocal of an integer, they are also called root functions.

A category about a function/operation (there is no distinction, from a mathematical point of view) covers everything involving that function, e.g.

f(x)=b^{x}+c

belongs to Category:Exponential functions. Without this convention, the latter function couldn't be categorized here. With this convention, the coverage of Category:Exponential functions and Category:Natural exponential function coincide, since

b^{x}=e^{x\cdot \ln b}

; this problem is left open for now.

-- Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Pictograms

Dumped category Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Вадзім Медзяноўскі: Please elaborate on what you propose we do about this category and why. Thanks! Josh (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too much files. Some not are pictograms. --Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Вадзім Медзяноўскі: CFD is to discuss changes for the category's purpose, name, parent or subcategories. If there are images here that clearly don't belong here, you are welcome to move them, but there is no need for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No action required. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Miniatures

Move to Category:Miniatures (paintings) to help distinguish from Category:Miniature objects. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though there are several items categorized here that are not miniature paintings, no doubt since the category name lacked that clarity. Josh (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support given w:Miniature is a DAB (and "Miniatures" redirects to it) and the fact that a common word is more likely to cause confusion here than at Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Miniatures (paintings). - Themightyquill (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:European green infrastructure

Rename Category:European Union strategy for green infrastructure to indicate the purpose of the category? Or just delete and upmerge the contents to Category:Green infrastructure and Category:Documents of the European Union‎? Themightyquill (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with an upmerge for the current content. If warranted, Category:Green infrastructure in Europe can be created to group European contents of the main category. Josh (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:People of the European Union

Move to Category:European Union people to clarify that it's not for any resident of the European Union. Themightyquill (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that this clarifies anything. At first read, both are just two ways to say the same thing. Is there a standard of "people of organization" or "organization people" always meaning people who are associated with that organization? From what I can tell these are used interchangeably. This is perhaps something we should look to rectify? Josh (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a standard of "people of organization" or "organization people" (we use both) but, in most cases, there's no potential for confusion. One can't be a resident of the Red Cross, after all. But we do have a standard of "people of country" for residents/citizens ie Category:People of the United States. So in this case, I think Category:People of the European Union is ambiguous. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, there aren't too many organizations that are simultaneously a place you can live...even countries have a seperate name for the government. To your example, in the US, residents are Category:People of the United States while government people are Category:United States government officials. What about Category:European Union officials? At any rate, I think I would prefer "organization people" as a general guide for organizations with "people of country/organization/etc" for residents of that entity. So I support your proposal whether it is people, officials, or something else appropriate. Josh (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:European Union officials is a superior alternative. Category:European Union people does not resolve the ambiguity for me. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European Union officials seems a little weird to me since it's a subcategory of Category:People by organization but it seems to be a general term for anyone working for the EU from administration up so I won't protest. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:European Union officials. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Products with protected designation of origin

Move to Category:Products with geographical indications, a subcategory of Category:Geographical indications and traditional specialities. "protected designation of origin" is ambiguous, as it might mean any "geographical indication" scheme (general) or the Category:Protected Designation of Origin (a specific scheme run by the EU). Themightyquill (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, for instance that one subcategory, Category:Products with protected designation of origin of Italy (general), has a redundant-sounding subcategory, Category:PDO of Italy. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Products with geographical indications along with subcategories. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Female vocalists from Inlet

The category is meaningless. There would need to be something in front of Inlet for it to make sense. Such as Pond. Some (all?) of the women listed are not from places associated with inlets. For example Lucie Idlout is from Iqaluit and Tanya Tagag is from Cambridge Bay. There is nothing in inlet that ties them together. The category needs deleting. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 21:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was meant to be 'Inuit' instead of 'Inlet'? Who knows, but regardless it is not needed. Upmerge into parent Category:Inuit singers. Josh (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Upmerge to Category:Inuit singers but ensure all the subcategories are in Category:Female vocalists or some more specific sub-category. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Enchanted Kingdom (San Lorenzo South, Balibago, City of Santa Rosa, Laguna)

For renaming to "Enchanted Kingdom", current category name is too long Ianlopez1115 (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good morning from hereat Bulacan, as I miss your contributions in Wikipedia, yours are great in terms of Wisdom; actually, when I like to separate the latest or my photos from the ones already posted like here in Enchanted Kingdom Kingdom one picture of Capt. Mamon etc., I created a sub-category; and also, I failed to enter the Kingdom since it was fully booked and I already finished Santa Rosa except for 3 Barangays, I do not like to come back due to traffic, hence, no objection to renaming, very sincerely and thanks again for sharing to me your knowledge of Wikipedia before as you rememberJudgefloro 03:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree the name is unnecessarily long. What about renaming to Category:Enchanted Kingdom (theme park) or Category:Enchanted Kingdom (Philippines). It seems to me that some kind of disambiguation might be useful, since it's a fairly generic term frequently used in other contexts. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on: Category:Enchanted Kingdom (Philippines). It's because here in PHL, Enchanted Kingdom is usually understood as the famous theme park of Laguna province.JWilz12345 (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Enchanted Kingdom (Philippines). - Themightyquill (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Baao, Camarines Sur

No proper information on each uploaded items Stephentalla (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Stephentalla: If the issue is with files in this category, the files themselves should be tagged, not the category as a whole. If the category ends up empty as a result, at that point it can be considered for removal. Josh (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its a legally recognized place so is clearly notable on Wikipedia and even moreso here, per Josh the problematic images should be dealt with first but there will probably still be acceptable images anyway but if not then this will be deleted as a result. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the category itself. - Themightyquill (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Tram route signage

Category:Tram route signage	Move to/Rename as	Category:Tram route signs
main category for signage is Category:Signs
Josh (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Possible. ~~I don't remember why I chose the word "signage" in 2011.~~ --ŠJů (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC) In 2015, Tuvalkin renamed this category from "Tram line numbers" to "Tram route signage" to reflect non-numeral signs of tram routes. I think, the word "signs" is acceptable for all forms of such signage. --ŠJů (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ŠJů: That explains why it still had a legacy connection to Category:Tram routes by number. Thanks! Josh (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition, Joshbaumgartner, if you want to make this move. - Themightyquill (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ŠJů and Themightyquill: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Spam race

If this category serves any purpose, which I am sure the creator will say it does, it needs to be renamed to reflect this. ~riley (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This category was not necessarily meant to be there forever. I saw that Cultural heritage monuments in Thailand currently starts with 199 images like (2019) Wat... So I collected some examples of images with similar bad names. (E.g. almost all images by Lupus in Saxonia are among them.) We surely agree that images like + 00000000002 Panorama Image... or ! ! ! ! Generals House... were rightly renamed. So this is a special case of Media requiring renaming. It is a silly category name for a silly problem. Sure, it could be renamed. I personally think a description on the page is more useful than a perfect name. Watchduck (quack) 09:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, it should be kept as a maintenance category and removed from Category:Lexicographic order. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is looking for a perfect name - that said, as with any category, you need to have some level of understanding of it's contents by reading the name. I would be happy support keeping this category if renamed and marked as a maintenance category. ~riley (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something like Images with meaninless prefixes would make sense. The description could add that the focus is on those that reduce the lexicographic rank. (Unlike e.g. the tilda, as seen in File:~A Long Journey~.jpg.) Watchduck (quack) 15:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support Category:Images with meaningless prefixes.

~riley (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Images with meaningless prefixes. - Themightyquill (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Wojciech Ścigała

please delete the category - I do not wish to be listed on Wiki. And I'm not a notable nor public person. Wojtus (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Boerenprotest

Should this category not beː Demonstrations and protests by farmers in the Netherlands? See Category:Demonstrations and protests by farmers. JopkeB (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that shall be a better name for it on Commons so everyone can interpret the category. Behanzane (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed it. Behanzane (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksǃ As far as I am concerned this issue can be closed. JopkeB (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Demonstrations and protests by farmers in the Netherlands. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Burgemeester

Empty duplicate for Category:Mayors of the Netherlands; the Dutch word for 'mayor' is 'burgemeester'. Robotje (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burgemeester can be removed!

Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 14:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Female clergies and theologians

	Category:Female clergies and theologians	Split	Category:Female clergy Category:Female theologians

There is no Category:Clergies and theologians. These are two separate concepts, so should have two separate categories. Josh (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it would be great to separate clergies from theologians. Ten years ago, now I do not remember, but I see it in my distributions, I was trying to clean Category:Women by occupation from files. But I was only able to make rough classification and not to delimit, define, bound, mark off, fence off, rope in clergies and theologians. --Diwas (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also because "clergies" is probably not the right word - since "clergy" already refers to a class or group of religious leaders, its plural would seem to refer to plural classes or groups of religious leaders rather than plural individuals. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Politicians of Vietnam by party

no photo Gunofficial1998 (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Category:Politicians of Vietnam by party	Keep
	@Gunofficial1998: This is a category of catgories, no files should be shown here directly.
	Josh (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Alexander Belenky

double Category:Aleksandr Belenky GAndy (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GAndy: Any input on which should be preferred? Josh (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Sorry, I didn't understand the question :-( GAndy (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GAndy: I assume you want to merge these 2? Which name is correct? Josh (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I do not know which version of the first and last name is more correct in English. There are different versions of the transfer from Russian to English. I think both options are correct. You can leave any. GAndy (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's redirect Category:Alexander Belenky to Category:Aleksandr Belenky. The latter already has a wikidata link. - Themightyquill (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected Category:Alexander Belenky to Category:Aleksandr Belenky. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Unparished areas in the United Kingdom

	Category:Unparished areas in the United Kingdom	Delete
	unecessary extra level, as only child is Category:Unparished areas in England. This child can be moved up directly to parents Category:Unparished areas and Category:Civil parishes in the United Kingdom.
	Josh (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, especially since Category:Unparished areas only has the one child category. - Themightyquill (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mikhail Franzevich Lenin

Double, see Category:Mikhail Lenin GAndy (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK redirect created--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sacred Grove

Propose move to Category:Sacred Grove (Latter Day Saints) (matching en:Sacred Grove (Latter Day Saints)) or Category:Sacred Grove, New York Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy move per WP and the fact that categories need to be DABBed more here than on WP and that DIFFCAPS is used less here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguated. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Great Bridge

Great Bridge, Virginia was formerly a separate municipality in Virginia, named after the Battle of Great Bridge of 1775. The current bridge, at Great Bridge, has the slightly odd name Great Bridge Bridge. In my opinion Category:Great Bridge should be reserved for the former municipality, while images of the current bridge should be in Category:Great Bridge Bridge. Geo Swan (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that. When I created Category:Great Bridge, it was identified as a bridge in Chesapeake, Virginia, and was not in Category:Great Bridge, Virginia, which category was only just created today (2½ years later). And since the place named Great Bridge, Virginia no longer exists as a separate municipality, I was not even aware that such a place existed. I thought that "Great Bridge" was a descriptive name for the bridge, and it probably was – i.e., the ~~former town~~ community was probably named for the (original) bridge, not the other way around. The Wikipedia article on the place claims that it was named for the Battle of Great Bridge, which is almost certainly wrong. The article on the battle indicates it was named for the place, the exact opposite claim. The reality may be that the community of that name did not exist at the time of the battle, so the battle was named for the bridge (whose name was intended to be descriptive, and included the word bridge only once, not twice), but if that's the case, then the battle article is currently erred in claiming it was named for the place named Great Bridge, and I hope someone will address this error soon. I have no interest in the area, only in drawbridges. Anyway, I am no authority on the subject, and I was just doing my best to give an appropriate name to the category for the bridge when I created it in 2017 – at which time no "Great Bridge" categories existed, having all been created just today. Steve Morgan (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the article on the place named Great Bridge does not say anything about it ever having been a municipality at one time. I just assumed that Geo Swan was correct on that point, but it was appears he was not. It was probably an unincorporated area which, at some point, was annexed by Chesapeake. But I do not have time (nor interest) to research that at present. Steve Morgan (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple communities named "Great Bridge".
Sorry Steve Morgan, I don't think it matters whether the Great Bridge was merely a community, or an incorporated municipality.
I think the multiple maps show it was a community, at the time of the battle. Not counting the fort, the church, and the two batteries, I count 32 houses and outbuildings. Geo Swan (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it was a municipality is not relevant to the changes being discussed here, but it was an error, and I prefer not to leave errors uncorrected, even in informal discussions. Now, returning to the discussion (which I was already planning to do at this time): Having thought about it more, I now have a different position. Assuming that the name of the original bridge was purely descriptive, and that the community was named after it, then any article or category name of "Great Bridge Bridge" or "Great Bridge bridge" is a misnomer, inaccurately implying that the bridge was named after the place, whereas in fact the current (2004) bridge was simply named after the predecessor bridge, and the previous bridge named for its predecessor at the same site, etc back to the original bridge. I now suggest moving Category:Great Bridge to Category:Great Bridge (2004 bridge) and then converting the resulting redirect at Category:Great Bridge to a disambiguation page. (Well, it looks like you have already started to make a change like this while I was writing this message.) Steve Morgan (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from my last message: For the same reason, the Wikipedia article currently titled Great Bridge Bridge (which was a redirect until very recently) should be moved also, and I suggest moving it to "Great Bridge (2004 bridge)" and then placing a hat note at the top to point people to a disambiguation page listing other uses of the name Great Bridge on Wikipedia (including the community of Great Bridge, Virginia). I am willing to make those changes if you wish. Steve Morgan (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the cited 3-11-2018 Virginian-Pilot article says that some of the predecessor bridges were at different locations than the current bridge, which lends some credence to the same article's claim that the current bridge's name really is Great Bridge Bridge. In that case, the Wikipedia article perhaps does not need to be moved, but ideally someone should find a source for the original bridge's name, so that the article can indicate that (some or all of) the earlier bridges were named simply Great Bridge, not Great Bridge Bridge, and that the original name was simply someone's (whose?) descriptive name. Steve Morgan (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted Category:Great Bridge into a disambiguation page, as was already the case for the English and German Wikipedia pages for that title. Steve Morgan (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree "Great Bridge" should be a DAB since we tend to disambiguate more than on WP anyway furthermore w:WP:USPLACE specifies the state is included anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan and Steve Morgan: Are we okay to close discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself: yes. Steve Morgan (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Consensus acheived through cooperation... Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguated. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:2100882 (aircraft)

Category:2100882 (aircraft)	Move to/Rename as	Category:42-100882 (aircraft)
Category:2102516 (aircraft)	Move to/Rename as	Category:42-102516 (aircraft)
Category:2106511 (aircraft)	Move to/Rename as	Category:42-106511 (aircraft)
Category:2106638 (aircraft)	Move to/Rename as	Category:42-106638 (aircraft)
The actual serial number assigned to this aircraft is "42-100882".
Josh (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added three additional aircraft with the identical situation above. Josh (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reject the proposal. This is about the 'identity' of the subjects of images. The identity of any photo subject (eg aircraft, person, etc), is the 'name' that the subject presents to the world at large. For example, the identity of Bob Dylan, as represented in the names of Wikimedia articles, categories and images, is "Bob Dylan", irrespective of his current legal name, birth certificate, passport, list of "also known as", etc.

Similarly, the primary identifier of an aircraft represented in images and categories should be the identifier that is presented to the human viewer via a camera and recorded image, at the instant when the image is created. The particular problem with some aircraft images is that the unenlightened viewer (=photographer/uploader/cataloguer) can only identify the individual subject by looking at a name or number painted on the aircraft. By contrast, some people who self-identify as "aircraft enthusiasts" have a different, esoteric, perspective. In that view of the world, the number painted on an aircraft has to be 'reverse-engineered' via obscure algorithms to arrive at what they perceive to be its 'true' identity, and they typically delete the displayed number in favour of their preference.

Of the examples cited here, 2106511 is a specific problem, in that it is entirely unrelated to the aircraft that had the military fiscal serial number 42-106511. It is simply painted as 2106511, but its original fiscal serial is probably 42-103293, or 43-12193 in current FAA files, or perhaps it is a conglomeration of various other individual aircraft.

2106638 is another problem, because the aircraft painted as such has been constructed almost entirely from (old and new) parts that don't originate from the aircraft that had the fiscal serial number 42-106638, but it crucially includes a data plate (like a VIN plate) from that destroyed airframe to best suit US FAA (civilian) bureaucracy.

In all four examples listed above, the current physical aircraft are owned by civilians, and operated (flown) under civilian laws and regulations, so any military fiscal serial numbers whether painted or inferred, are no longer valid or legal identities anyway. Inferring such fiscal numbers is simply a fanciful invention, and makes no rational sense to unenlightened users or photo cataloguers and archivists. By all means, create category redirects to reflect an esoteric system, but we should not apply inferred numbers to the image file names, or to categories containing the image files.PeterWD (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2106511 is not a serial number or registration. By having a category Category:2106511 (aircraft) under Category:Aircraft by United States Army/Air Force serial number and Category:Aircraft by registration, we are lying to users by presenting it as an actual serial number, which it is not. The warbird in question is a depiction of 42-106511, even if it is not the original aircraft which carried, which is presented on the aircraft in abbreviated form as 2106511. I would be perfectly fine with simply redirecting Category:2106511 (aircraft) to the actual registration of the aircraft in the pictures, Category:N251MX (aircraft). Josh (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 2106511 is not a "serial number" or a civil registration allocated by an airworthiness authority, but it is clearly the principal real-world identifier (ie identity, aka 'tail number' in aviation parlance) observable to everyone, and should not therefore be hidden in a redirect, unlike the fiscal serial number that is virtual and not real (except perhaps to 'fanboys'). So, 2106511 (aircraft) should indeed not come under Category:Aircraft by United States Army/Air Force serial number, where Josh has placed it. Anyway, perhaps we should place the narrow-focus Category:Aircraft by registration into a new Category:Aircraft by identity, and then add another subcat Category:Aircraft by tail number, to more accurately reflect the variation in perceptions.PeterWD (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterWD: Closed (no consensus to rename to actual serial number; instead remove pseudo-serials from real serial categories) Josh (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Groups

Naming of groups should be standardized as much as possible. We have a variety of different naming conventions. Groups of 10 widgets may be categorized as: "10 widgets", "Ten widgets", "Groups of 10 widgets", "Groups of widgets - 10", and a few others. Solitary items have even more various ways to be named. I propose a simple convention for objects of which there are groups to be categorized:

Category:Groups
- Category:Groups of object
  - Category:Groups of 1 object
  - Category:Groups of 2 objects
  - Category:Groups of 3 objects
  - ...

Using the number '1' instead of 'one' seems better for internationalization. The object should be a countable, definable entity. Josh (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with standardizing, but one item is not a group. Maybe these categories should be named something like Category:Foo by number shown. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can have a group of 1. It may sound a little odd, but nothing invalid. "A group is a number of people or things that are located, gathered, or classed together." - en:Group; "1" is a number. You can absolutely have a group or set of 1. "Category:Foo by number shown" ("Category:Foo by quantity depicted" would be a bit more precise) works fine as the index category, but how do you structure the subs then? Josh (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"1 object", "2 objects", etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that could work. So something like:

Category:Objects
- Category:Objects by quantity
  - Category:1 object
  - Category:2 objects ...

@Auntof6: This is fine, still achieves the goal of standardizing the format and avoids the oddness of 'groups of 1'. Josh (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On further looking into it, this version has a problem...where do you put images with a number of objects for which there is no category, such as one where the exact count is too high to matter, or is unreasonable to identify exactly. Leaving them in the 'by quantity' category would not work since such categories do not typically permit files to remain there, and to have "Category:5392 objects" seems impractical. Leaving them unsorted in the main category also seems less than optimal. Josh (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could either put them in the parent category "Category:Objects" (no number specified) or have a category like "Category:100+ objects". --Auntof6 (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: As it turns out, there is Category:Many (adjective) that covers large numbers that one would not necessarily count exactly. I have no problem with Category:Many objects residing under Category:Objects by quantity. I do not think putting them in the parent category is really a good plan, because it becomes harder to sort out files that should be sorted from the main to a sub from those that are just to remain at the parent level. Josh (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Closed (modified proposal; use "# object" format) Josh (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Akkordeonregister

Category:Akkordeonregister	Move to/Rename as	Category:Accordion register symbols
English-language per COM:CAT and Commons:Language policy.
Josh (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a number of images from Category:Accordion reed ranks and switches could also go there. --rimshot^talk 21:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition, Joshbaumgartner. Go ahead and make the change. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rimshot and Themightyquill: Closed (no opposition) Josh (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Снимки на Стария Слънчев бряг

Cyrillic name. Images to be moved to the parent category: Category:Sunny Beach? Estopedist1 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all the files in this category have been deleted. --Regasterios (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Unused and empty category. Deleting. --Regasterios (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Television hosts by country

Merge into Category:Television presenters by country, which is larger. There doesn't seem to be a clear distinction between a television host and a television presenter. GRuban (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nomination. --Ə XPLICIT 07:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Золотая корона

should be category:Zolotaya Korona? Estopedist1 (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per en:Zolotaya Korona. - Themightyquill (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done: already done. --Ə XPLICIT 07:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Ntare V of Burundi

Unused redirect TaleofTalisman (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the redirect, which matches the enWP article title (and is similar to article titles in other languages). We usually keep likely spellings and this is an obvious candidate. --rimshot^talk 21:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: per discussion. --Ə XPLICIT 07:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Christina Hammock

Her name ist "Christina Hammock Koch". Commonly and by NASA the name "Christina Koch" is used. Therefore the only category should be one of these names. The sub-category "Christina Hammock" should therefore be deleted. A11w1ss3nd (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the redirect a problem? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: useful redirect. --Ə XPLICIT 07:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Multiple flags

Category:Multiple flags	Redirect	Category:Groups of flags
Redundant. This is currently a sub-cat of "Groups of flags". The only difference from its parent is that it excludes groups of 1 flag, otherwise the two are completely identical. I don't see any value to having a sub that groups all but 1 case.
Josh (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Price plates

~~Category:price plates~~	~~Union~~	~~Category:price signs~~
~~Category:price plates in Japan~~	~~Union~~	~~Category:price signs in Japan~~
~~There is only one file in these two categories, and it can live just fine in Category:Price signs in Japan.~~ (Category:Price plates in Japan has now been populated with sufficient images, but further discussion regarding the name follows)
Josh (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I can't agree "merge". It's quite different from "fixed" price sign. --Benzoyl (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Benzoyl (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benzoyl: Thank you for populating the category with enough images to warrant Category:Price plates in Japan remaining. I agree that there could be value in categorizing changeable price signs as a sub-set of price signs in general. Now for specifics, by 'price plate', what exactly are you considering to be a price plate vs. a price sign. I get that it isn't fixed, but you haven't provided much definition beyond that. Are we talking about the whole sign, or only the little number bits that can be changed out? Does it only apply to the type with exchangeable pre-made number plaques, or would one with written prices that can be rapidly changed also qualify? Josh (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Thank you, too. More than anything, Sorry for neglecting work (=finding and adding files) until now.

In the case of "digital", There is Category:Electronic shelf labels.

In addition, There is Category:Erasable shop signs. But, "Erasable price signs" (Per product=individual) does n’t exist (=few). Because, It (=Erasable) may lack credibility? (For example, Someone can rewrite easily) --Benzoyl (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the type of signs "written prices that can be rapidly changed" ?

It might exist, But unfortunately I can't at present think of other kind of "exchangeable price signs" (Category:Revised price signs is ineligible). Thank you for your continued advice. --Benzoyl (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benzoyl: No worries, the work is great. I would like to use a name for the category that makes it more clear to all users what exactly this separate category of price signs is for. I think Category:Changeable price signs or something along that vein would make it easier to readily identify that this category is for price signs that are not 'fixed'. This would improve the ease with which others can make use of your good work and avoid future users muddling it. I certainly support what you are doing with this category. Josh (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Category:Changeable price signs is the excellent idea (and Category-name). I couldn't think of it. Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Price plates	Merge into	Category:Changeable price signs
Category:Price plates in Japan	Merge into	Category:Changeable price signs in Japan
increases clarity of what belongs in these categories
Josh (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~analog~~ not digital

@Benzoyl: Closed (resolved; merge per final proposal) Josh (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Diagrams of footpath signs in Dresdner Heide

Tuvalkin (talk · contribs) has indicated that this category should be categorized under Category:Symbols directly, but it is already in Category:Footpath signs in Dresdner Heide, which is a sub-category of Category:Symbols so it creates a COM:OVERCAT violation. I propose that it should remain under Category:Footpath signs in Dresdner Heide and not be duplicated directly in Category:Symbols. Josh (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: As I can see, Category:Footpath signs in Dresdner Heide is not a direct subcategory of Category:Symbols. Generally, not all hiking and footpath signs are "symbols", but these signs are. --ŠJů (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ŠJů: You are correct that it is a long line of descent from Category:Symbols to Category:Footpath signs in Dresdner Heide but none-the-less, Category:Signs is a subclass of Category:Symbols, so yes, 'signs' are indeed a kind of 'symbol'. Josh (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, two levels of symbolism can be reflected by two categorization lines to the root category of symbols. The first meaning is the directional instruction, the second one can be what the symbols represents (letters, digits, pictograms etc.). --ŠJů (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the original post. I didn’t check carefully the parent cats when reverting. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin and ŠJů: Closed (resolved; no further action) Josh (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Commuter rail systems

Rename to Category:suburban trains Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rail systems include more than just trains. --MB-one (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Current name is more accurate, as per MB-one (talk · contribs) they include more than trains. Also, they serve both urban centers and suburban areas. Josh (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suburban trains could redirect to Category:Commuter rail systems though. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a redirect is a good idea. Josh (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suburban trains redirected to Category:Commuter rail systems. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Three letter combinations (other scripts)

“Other” is not a categorisation criterion. Move to Category:Three letter combinations. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but better yet: Create categories by script. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Taivo. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Арктический плавучий университет

no article or link in the ruwiki, see ru:Арктический плавучий университет. Is latinized form Category:SAFUniversity? Estopedist1 (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Арктический плавучий университет	Move to/Rename as	Category:Arctic Floating University
English name for this annual expedition (used on their website)
Josh (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Arctic Floating University. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Models of vehicles

Category:Toy vehicles подкатегория и надкатегория одновременно. Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Вадзім Медзяноўскі: Do you have a proposed solution? Josh (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Вадзім Медзяноўскі: Closed (no proposal) Josh (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mairies in France

Category:Mairies in France is in english Category:Town halls in France Havang(nl) (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Havang(nl): Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:SMS CZ s.r.o.

Empty category. Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. -Themightyquill (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Вадзім Медзяноўскі and Themightyquill: Closed (populated) Josh (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Paul Murphy (British politician)

Change of category name to ‘Paul Murphy, Baron Murphy of Torfaen’ as he has been titled with a peerage since 2015 ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No need to add honorifics, titles, etc. to peoples' names in Categories, especially when they are not constant over their life. The current title is fine, but if you want to trade out 'politician' for 'peer', that would also be fine, but the original proposal is not something we should be doing (though I know that it has been done for some). Josh (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialArchivesRU: Closed (no consensus) Josh (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Duarte Pio de Bragança

To change the name of the category to the official name of the individual rather than the translated version from Portuguese, as: Infante Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duarte Pio seems to be the correct name to use (en:Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza), what is your basis for seeking "Infante Duarte Pio"? Josh (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialArchivesRU: Closed (no consensus) Josh (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird

This aircraft is named inconsistently in different categories, sometimes "Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird", "Lockheed SR-71", or "SR-71 Blackbird". We should standardize on one of these for all Commons categories. Josh (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird	Move to/Rename as	Category:SR-71 Blackbird
This will rename the parent category to match the majority of sub-categories. "SR-71 Blackbird" is plenty sufficient to uniquely identify this aircraft so no further disambiguation is required. However, either way we should standardize on one format for this aircraft's name.
Josh (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Category:SR-71 Blackbird by location	Move to/Rename as	Category:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird by location
This proposal would change all of the sub-categories of Category:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird to match the name of the parent category. Currently the name of the parent aircraft class category (Category:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird) and enwiki article (en:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird) This would be applied to all references to the SR-71 in Commons category names under Category:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird
Josh (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose dropping the manufacturer name from the category. Military aircraft parent categories are almost universally named using the format "<Company> <Identifier Number> <Name>". They also frequently seem to drop the company name for subcategories. Perhaps that inconsistency isn't ideal, but you should be aware that it's a very widely used scheme. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BMacZero: I think that is fine for aircraft with only one manufacturer to include them in the name. I understand that the dropping of manufacturer names for subcats is frequently though not universally done, but that is no reason to keep doing things wrong. I'm all for a short and concise name for categories, hence my initial proposal, but more important is to name things consistently. If a subject main cat is "Category:Abc Xyz", other cats referring to the subject should call it "Abc Xyz", not arbitrarily shorten it to "Abc" or "Xyz" or even make it "Abc Lmn Xyz". Using a different name should be reserved for indicating a different set, not just laziness or shorthand. Josh (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong

Oppose no reason to remove the manufacturer from the category. Align the subcategories with the given parent naming scheme.--AVIA BavARia (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BMacZero and AVIA BavARia: Closed (consensus for Proposal B: In cases where there is clearly a single manufacturer that is appropriate to apply to an aircraft name, that manufacturer name should be included as part of the category name. Sub-categories should reflect this as well for vertical consistency in the schema.) Josh (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Photographs of the Union flag by district

Completely vague. There is no definition of a district. Stick to counties and towns. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of the Union flag by district	Move to/Rename as	Category:Photographs of the Union Jack in London by district
Main category for the flag is Category:Union Jack. Category:Districts of London appear to be, while informal, at least distinguishable entities. So long as they are maintained, this category and its contents are valid.
Josh (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The Union flag is only a jack when flown on a jackstaff. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: As mentioned at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Union Jack, your assertion is a matter of debate. It also misses the point that subs of Category:Union Jack should be named consistently. If you feel "Union flag" is a better name for the parent category, by all means make that case on its CfD, but so long as it is "Union Jack", its subs should match. Josh (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but in this case we need to sort out what is to be done with districts. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: Since districts exist as geographic entities (see Category:Districts of London) which objects can be located in, so a "flag by district" format seems logical. However, we do need to clarify they are London districts, so I have amended my proposal to reflect that. Josh (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: Closed (modified proposal) Josh (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Consolidated B-24 Liberator

All Commons categories referring to the B-24 should use the same name, so one of the following proposals should be selected. I currently lean to Proposal A on the merits but am open to either so long as the result is one name to use for all categories going forward:


Category:Consolidated B-24 Liberator	Move to/Rename as	Category:B-24 Liberator
This proposal would change the parent category name to match the majority of its sub-categories Currently the name used by the vast majority of Commons categories that reference the B-24 "B-24 Liberator" is more than sufficient to uniquely identify the aircraft so no further description/disambiguation required in the category name Cleanest and simplest title on practical grounds
Josh (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Category:B-24 Liberator by name	Move to/Rename as	Category:Consolidated B-24 Liberator by name
Category:B-24 Liberator aircrew	Move to/Rename as	Category:Consolidated B-24 Liberator aircrew
This proposal would change all of the sub-categories of Category:Consolidated B-24 Liberator to match the name of the parent category. Currently the name of the parent aircraft class category (Category:Consolidated B-24 Liberator) and enwiki article (en:Consolidated B-24 Liberator) This would be applied to all references to the B-24 in Commons category names under Category:Consolidated B-24 Liberator
Josh (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am firmly of the opinion that the full name should be used in all sub categories for several reasons. When searching for categories for an image, it is much more work to navigate on a separate page to the main category, then navigate through all the nested sub cats to find the appropriate one, when one can simply type the main name and it will give all the available sub cats to choose from. As it stands, many of the subcats are so randomly named, that this built in function is largely wasted - along with the time it could save. Also, access to the sub-categories is often not from the top down, so disambiguation is still very much useful. The only exception should be those countries that did not use the B-24 designation such as the RAF - where it should simply be Consolidated Liberator (Royal Air Force). Consistency is good as it makes it much easier to find stuff.NiD.29 (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NiD.29: Yes indeed, hence my effort to have one name to refer to the same aircraft with the same name. I totally agree that it is far better if one can simple type 'B-24 Liberator' or 'Consolidated B-24 Liberator' and then have a list of all relevant sub-cats that start with the name of the aircraft (this won't work with cats that use the name at the end instead of the beginning). As for the RAF example you use, note that 'B-24 Liberator' is the name for the entire family (main parent category). Individual versions, such 'B-24C Liberator' or 'Consolidated Liberator II' are their own aircraft, but should follow the same policy of using a single name through all categories. 'Consolidated Liberator' would pertain solely to that particular version of the 'B-24 Liberator' family. Josh (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NiD.29: Do you have any opposition to adopting Proposal B above, to adopt the full "Consolidated B-24 Liberator" as the name to which should be used in category names related to this aircraft family? Sub cats for specific variants would have their specific names such as "Consolidated Liberator" for RAF series, "Consolidated B-24C Liberator" etc. for USAAF variants. Josh (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good to me.NiD.29 (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NiD.29: Closed (use long form name thoughout tree) Josh (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Volga-Kama Commercial Steam Navigation

double Category:Volga-Kama Commercial Shipping Company GAndy (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it as a redirect? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GAndy and Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; redirect) Josh (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:General Directors of the Kwantung Bureau

This government post the General Director of the Kwantung Bureau (関東局長官) didn't seem to exist. According to the Regulations governing the Organisation of the Kwantung Bureau (関東局官制, Imperial Ordinance No. 348 of 1934), the head of the Kwantung Bureau was the Ambassador of Japan to Manchukuo and there was no specific post like the General Director (長官). The Japanese wikipedia category corresponding to this category has already been deleted (ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/Category:関東局長官). 庚寅五月 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@庚寅五月: No opposition in a month. Do you want a redirect to Category:Ambassadors of Japan to Manchukuo, or should I just delete it? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this category should be deleted because there was no government post with this name. --庚寅五月 (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@庚寅五月 and Themightyquill: Closed (no objetions; delete) Josh (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:SVG brazilian royalty coats of arms

Please rename this category to "SVG Brazilian royalty coats of arms". "Brazilian" is always spelt with a capital "B" because "Brazil" is a place. Thanks in advance. 51.37.123.64 18:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paz e bem!

Brasil (= Brazil) é o nome do país,

brasileira (= brazilian) é o adjetivo.

Logo é desnecessária a alteração.
Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category names are in English, so this does need to be changed so that "Brazilian" is capitalized. However, I'd suggest "Coats of arms of Brazilian royalty" to match the naming of other categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eugenio Hansen, OFS and Auntof6: Closed (capitalize per English naming convention) Josh (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Military vehicles of the interwar period

	Category:Military vehicles of the interwar period	Delete
	For temporal organization, use 'by year/decade/century' scheme as a more accurate and less POV/context-dependent method.
	Josh (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't Category:Interwar period and some of its other subcats also be addressed? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Yes, it probably deserves some attention, but I am not nominating it for deletion or any other specific action at that level. There are certainly some contents that do not make sense (why are some countries of this period listed and not others?) but for military equipment (and other discrete objects I would venture) it is pretty simple. There are many ways to periodicize history depending on point of view, what events you are focused on, what kind of history you have in front of you, what country you are in, and so forth. But an object is not necessarily relevant to the concept of any defined period just because it happens to coexist with that period or even have been conceived during that period. An object can be objectively classified by its date of inception, so doing so by year/decade/century is a very clean and NPOV way to categorize objects temporally. It is a very simple matter to remove objects from period categories and restrict them to year/decade/century categorization. I personally find 'interwar period' to be a rather lazy stab at putting a title on 'between World War I and World War II', but it is a period when a great many unrelated and in-their-own-right important things happened. Lumping them together as if they had some real relationship to eachother other than just a coincidental landing between two massive wars is not terribly insightful. Josh (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry for not commenting earlier, but this has now been applied to Category:Interwar tanks in museums‎, where the discussion was never tagged. "Interwar period" is correct and appropriate: it represents a time of relatively slow development, outside the pressures of war, and thus is influential. Many of the tanks here (the Renault FT / M1917 in particular) didn't change for 20 years. This important distinction has now been lost. Also the idea of imposing "by decade" is largely arbitrary and pointless - just the regular meaningless wikibollocks of introducing a "consistent" (we don't actually need consistency) scheme to a place where it means nothing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andy Dingley: This discussion is closed. I recommend you start a new discussion for the categories you're concerned about. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) raised a fair point about this particular sub-category not being tagged and thus they were unaware of the discussion. However, Auntof6 (talk · contribs) is correct that the proper forum to discuss this is a new CfD. Also, Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)'s reverts of edits done to implement a closed CfD created a mess which should be cleaned up and a proper CfD held. Josh (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hey, you don't get to accuse other editors of creating a mess when it stems from you either not listing a CfD correctly, or else using that CfD (two editors? you call that a consensus?) to start deleting a number of other correct categories, with no discussion whatsoever. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#CfD_scope?_(Military_vehicles_of_the_interwar_period) Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussion

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Animal families

Category:Animal families	Disambiguate	Wikimedia disambiguation category
Category:Animal families	Split	Category:Animal families (taxonomic rank) Category:Animal familial groups
This category should be for the taxonomic rank of family, but includes a lot of files depicting familial relationships. These are not the same things, but confusion is understandable, so recommend a split and dab.
Josh (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! Absolutely. I can't believe Category:Animal families currently holds portraits of mother, father and child elephants, etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sealift ships

Do we need both Category:Sealift ships and Category:Military Sealift Command ships? If we are merging one to another I suggest we keep Category:Military Sealift Command ships. Geo Swan (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This category contains ships that are not only in Military Sealift Command service (e.g. Category:HMNZS Canterbury (L421) of New Zealand). Sealift is conducted by more than just the United States. It does seem that this category is mis-categorized under the United States Navy, however. Josh (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should of course fix its categorization as a type of ship, not one specific to a particular navy. Josh (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: Closed (no consensus to merge) Josh (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Astrid of Belgium

User:ImperialArchivesRU keeps trying to move this category without discussion. Several users have already complained in user page about similar moves and he keeps edit wars trying to move pages to what he thinks are "correct" names, even when there is an open CfDs Tm (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tm and ImperialArchivesRU: Closed (no proposal; bring up user behavior at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard; this category should not be renamed without a CfD) Josh (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Charles Calvert

empty category (created by mistake) duplicate of Category:Charles Calvert (artist) Robby (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation (linked to en:Charles Calvert) with Category:Charles Calvert (artist), Category:Charles Calvert (governor), Category:Charles Calvert, 3rd Baron Baltimore, Category:Charles Calvert, 5th Baron Baltimore, and Category:Charles Benedict Calvert. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby and Themightyquill: Closed (dab) Josh (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Comunicador

probably not English title. Should be category:communicators? See also en:Communicator Estopedist1 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, the correct English title should be Category:Communicators. However, I fail to see the point of this category. It does not show anyone engaged in the occupation of communicating, it is merely some headshots of some people who I guess are communicators by trade, but how does this possibly inform anyone about the what the occupation looks like or illustrate how it is conducted? I would suggest simply deleting this category. Josh (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: Closed (no objections; delete) Josh (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Fuel tanks

This category contains photos of cisterns Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Vehicle fuel tanks to remove the ambiguity? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Why is there ambiguity between "fuel tank" and "cistern"? They are both liquid storage units, but one is for fuel, and the other for water. Not all fuel tanks are part of vehicles, so there is purpose to having Category:Fuel tanks, though vehicle fuel tanks could go under it to group all of those that are part of a vehicle. If images of cisterns got put into this category, it sounds like simple mis-categorization, so re-cat them in Category:Cisterns and that is that, I would think. Josh (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my comments were confusing. I assumed that Вадзім Медзяноўскі was suggesting there are photos of fuel storage tanks (1, 2, 3, and many more) in this category, even though the category description currently says it should only be for vehicle fuel tanks, whereas tanks used for storage should go in Category:Storage tanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I get we probably need to clean that up a bit. Both 'cisterns' and 'fuel tanks' are 'storage tanks' strictly speaking, but I get we probably want to differentiate between immobile tanks for holding large stores of fuel, mobile tanks for the large-scale transport of fuel, and vehicle fuel tanks for the immediate use of the vehicle they are part of. Perhaps something like:

Category:Storage tanks by contents
- Category:Fuel tanks
  - Category:Fuel storage tanks (structures for storage of large quantities of fuel)
  - Category:Fuel transport tanks (tanks for transport of large quantities of fuel)
  - Category:Vehicle fuel tanks (tanks holding fuel for immediate use by the vehicle)

@Themightyquill: Perhaps something like the above would work. We should include descriptions on each to clarify for users. Josh (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that makes good sense to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Вадзім Медзяноўскі and Themightyquill: Closed (keep as parent; create sub-catgories for types) Josh (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Villa Haarbrückenstraße (Бородинского Borodino) 17/19 / Ecke Lawsker Allee (Kaliningrad)

bad name. It consists of Cyrillic letters Estopedist1 (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: Closed (remove Cyrillic) Josh (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Villa Kastanienallee (Каштановая аллея) 16, Kaliningrad

bad name. It consists of Cyrillic letters Estopedist1 (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: Closed (rename without Cyrillic) Josh (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Désirée (Swedish princess 1938)

Change of Category name to ‘Princess Désirée, Baroness Silfverschiöld’ as she is no longer a Princess of Sweden, but is only a Princess ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The category name specifies that she was (born a) Princess of Sweden in 1938. No need to move. Unnecessary moves are not appropriate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialArchivesRU and SergeWoodzing: Closed (no consensus) Josh (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sonja of Norway

To rename the category as either ‘Queen Sonja of Norway’ or ‘Queen Sonja, Queen Consort of Norway’ two distinct between reigning Norwegian Monarchs and Norwegian Consorts ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand. Is there another Norwegian monarch named Sonja or not? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialArchivesRU and Themightyquill: Closed (no consensus) Josh (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Saleha Mohamed Alam

Current Category for deletion due to it being moved to a new category ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialArchivesRU: To be clear, you moved it to Category:Queen Saleha, Queen Consort of Brunei without discussion then requested deletion. English wikipedia is at en:Queen Saleha of Brunei. I'm not sure the honorific is necessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: The reason for deletion is because there is no necessity for the former category of a full name which has not been in use for decades as well as to avoid confusion; English Wikipedia also explains that the individual is a Consort whereas most category pages of individuals on wikimedia commons do not refer to who the individual is in terms of their position.ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most categories for individuals on wikimedia do not indicate the position of the individual, which is why I'm not sure the title is necessary, though a redirect wouldn't hurt. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialArchivesRU and Themightyquill: Closed (no consensus to rename, consensus only to leave as a redirect) Josh (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Turret fighters

What is a "turret fighter"? It is not obvious. I think this category should be either deleted... or retained only with a description of what does and doesn't belong.

Note, the parallel wikipedia category has a different set of members. It also lacks a schema. Geo Swan (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turret fighters	Move to/Rename as	Category:Fighter aircraft with gun turrets
more clear as to the actual content of the category, and fits with other aircraft class categories by elements of their design (e.g. Category:Aircraft with 1 engine)
Josh (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: Closed (no objections to move to more descriptive title) Josh (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Females of New Zealand

Merge with Category:Women of New Zealand. The distinction between "females" and "women" is technical at best. feminist (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it was okay since we already have so many Females of X categories. We might wanna include those as well in the deletion discussion. --Trade (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If by "technical at best" you mean that the difference between women and girls isn't meaningful, then I'd have to disagree. It's very possible that someone would be looking specifically for images of either children or grown women. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6, Feminist, and Trade: I agree that this discussion should be happening at the Category:Females by country level, or even at Category:Female humans. Josh (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Feminist, Trade, and Auntof6: Closed (no consensus to merge; discussion probably should take place at a higher level category) Josh (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Estates

What is the difference between the categories Estates and Country estates? In Wikipedia there is no difference (Country estate redirects to Estate (land)). If there is any difference, please add clear descriptions to both categories, indicating their differences. JopkeB (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Industrial estates and Category:Council estates although the latter doesn't exist yet. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions:

Estate is the umbrella term for owning a (usually large) property.
An estate can have different type of functions: country estate (usually a residential building on a large property, with supporting farmland and woods), aristocratic estate (such as a palace, castle, or mansion) or industrial area.

So 'country estate' is only one of the types of an estate.
Both categories should stay. I'll make definitions for both categories. JopkeB (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Ruins of Сoastal battery C

should it be Category:Ruins of Сoastal battery S? Estopedist1 (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course NO, see the source. It seems strange you start the discussion without any reason indication. — Olgerts V (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK Cyrillic letter was Coastal, not battery C. Now the correct cat is: Category:Ruins of Coastal battery C--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Panoramic photographs

Category:Stitched images has sub-category Category:Panoramic photographs, which has subcategory Category:Panoramic photographs by technology‎, which has subcategory Category:Stitched images‎. Are all panoramic photographs stitched phographs? Are all stitched images panoramic photographs? I think the answer to both of these is no, but I could be wrong... Themightyquill (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are panoramic photographs that are not stitched: I used to have a camera that took panoramic photos. They can also be created by cropping. I am less familiar with stitched photos, but it seems possible that a stitched photo might not have the ratio to be considered panoramic. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I think most digital cameras that take panoramic photos actually are effectively stitch together various images, but I take your point. I'm not sure cropping an image of a lanscape makes it a panorama. en:Panoramic photography: While there is no formal division between "wide-angle" and "panoramic" photography, "wide-angle" normally refers to a type of lens, but using this lens type does not necessarily make an image a panorama. An image made with an ultra wide-angle fisheye lens covering the normal film frame of 1:1.33 is not automatically considered to be a panorama. An image showing a field of view approximating, or greater than, that of the human eye – about 160° by 75° – may be termed panoramic. This generally means it has an aspect ratio of 2:1 or larger, the image being at least twice as wide as it is high. The resulting images take the form of a wide strip. Some panoramic images have aspect ratios of 4:1 and sometimes 10:1, covering fields of view of up to 360 degrees. Both the aspect ratio and coverage of field are important factors in defining a true panoramic image. i.e. wide angle of view + wide aspect ratio = panorama.

That said, even if we use that definition, I'm not sure uploaders will stick to it. Probably a lost cause. But the ultimate point for the sake of this discussion is that there's no inherent link between Panoramic photos and stiched images. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult. I'd made photographs stitched from 2 or 3 images and put these images to "Panoramic ...". There is always someone who removes these Categories. There are special cameras for panoramics, some people think panoramics are much wider than height. IMO a lot of panoramics are stitched images and vice versa, but there are still panoramics which are not stitched and stitched images which are not panoramics. --XRay ^talk 10:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasons follow:

Photo panoramas (for brevity) are a subcategory of panoramas, which includes painted panormas. Commons:Categories#Modularity_principle says "A category can have more parent categories." and that would seem to be the case with this page. We aren't going to get rid of the painted panorama category and so the discussion is whether or not photo panoramas should be in a subcategory separate from painted panoramas -- I believe they should be.
I would argue that if one category needed to be deleted that it should be the stitched category (although it would be fine to keep both in my opinion) because it seems to me that:
1. It's easier to judge a result than a process unless the process is listed. A panorama is a result while stitching is a process. It's easy to look at a picture and decide that it's a panorama but there are several pictures in the stitched category that I would argue are difficult to know that they were stitched (and don't say anything about that in their description) except that because they are panoramas it's obvious that they must have been stitched. Thus, if one category were to be deleted, it should be the stitched category.
2. I would argue that stitched is a less-well known category and if one category needed to be deleted that it should be the less-well known one to help visitors find what they're looking for. However, I think it's fine to keep them both but I would only put a picture in the stitched category if it said in the description somewhere that yes it was stitched.

So keep because panoramas are a larger panoramic category including painted panoramas. Also, stitched is a process and it's difficult to know that a process was used unless it's mentioned (which it isn't in many of the photos in that category), and it's a less well-known term. Banaticus (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the overall consensus is that not all stiched images are panoramics, and that not all panoramics are stitched images. So I've created Category:Stiched panoramic photographs as a subcategory of Category:Stitched images and Category:Panoramic photographs. Hopefully that works for everyone. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Pheasant shooting

This category and all subcategories including "pheasant shooting" should be renamed to "pheasant hunting". The term "shooting" for certain types of hunting is a British peculiarity and uncommon almost everywhere else. Is there a way to do this automated? Tilon3 (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The corresponding WP article is also named Pheasant shooting. This is an ENGVAR issue - the sport is most common in the UK, where it is called "Pheasant shooting, not "Pheasant hunting".--Mhockey (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "WP article" should be moved accordingly. "most common in the UK" The United States begs to differ. "pheasant hunting" has over 1 million Google search results, while "pheasant shooting" has less than 200,000. --Tilon3 (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tilon3 and Mhockey: Do we have any files depicting pheasant hunting which does not involve shooting the things? If so, then 'hunting' should be the inclusive parent category and 'shooting' can be a subcat exclusive to forms involving shooting. If not, then there is no urgent need for the name to be one or the other (which country it is more popular in, what enwiki names its article, and Google results are all not controlling factors for category names) until we have a non-shooting pheasant image uploaded that would require the aforementioned structure. Josh (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"controlling factors" Yes, they are - at least as an indication for how universally accepted the term is. "Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles." cf. en:MOS:COMMONALITY --Tilon3 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: no consensus. --Ə XPLICIT 02:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Grouse shooting

Same problem as with "Category:Pheasant shooting": This category and all subcategories including "grouse shooting" should be renamed to "grouse hunting". The term "shooting" for certain types of hunting is a British peculiarity and uncommon almost everywhere else. Tilon3 (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The corresponding WP article is also named Grouse shooting. This is an ENGVAR issue - the sport is most common in the UK, where it is called "Grouse shooting", not "Grouse hunting".--Mhockey (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tilon3 and Mhockey: Do we have any files depicting grouse hunting which does not involve shooting the things? If so, then 'hunting' should be the inclusive parent category and 'shooting' can be a subcat exclusive to forms involving shooting. If not, then there is no urgent need for the name to be one or the other (which country it is more popular in, what enwiki names its article, and Google results are all not controlling factors for category names) until we have a non-shooting grouse hunting image uploaded that would require the aforementioned structure. Josh (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"controlling factors" Yes, they are - at least as an indication for how universally accepted the term is. "Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles." cf. en:MOS:COMMONALITY --Tilon3 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: no consensus. --Ə XPLICIT 02:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Models of combine harvesters

Empty category. Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Apparently not empty anymore. Josh (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lonely file in this category i to move in category:models of agricultural vehicles. --Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess for now I would recommend keeping this category. There aren't a ton of images but it is not breaking anything, so unless there is a real compelling need to axe it, we should leave it be. Josh (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Joshbaumgartner. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: per discussion. --Ə XPLICIT 02:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Jean, Count of Paris

To rename the category as Prince Jean d’Orléans, Count of Paris’ to distinguish from those other French Royals of other houses as well as the title ‘Prince’ as the individual is a Royal Count and not a noble ’ ImperialArchivesRU (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to en:Jean, Count of Paris, he uses the title "Jean, Count of Paris". - Themightyquill (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We might also use his legal name, Category:Jean-Carl Pierre Marie d’Orléans. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialArchivesRU and Themightyquill: Any consensus to make a change here or can we close this and leave as is? Josh (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: no consensus. --Ə XPLICIT 03:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mont Vinaigre

Quel rapport entre le mont vinaigre et le vinaigre? 93.0.201.77 16:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google says "What does vinegar have to do with vinegar?". @93.0.201.77: I'm afraid you need to explain further what change you are suggesting. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: unclear proposal. --Ə XPLICIT 02:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Lamps

Ambiguous title. Supposedly for lightning device components, actually contains mostly lighting fixtures. Suggestion: disambiguation to light source and lighting fixture. See also category:Lighting devices. Joostik (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per COMMONNAME. Because of the ambiguities, this is of little use other than as a container for clearer, more specific categories. However none of these are reasons to remove it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: no consensus. --Ə XPLICIT 03:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Images from Auckland Museum

Mixes up source category and topic category. Should be split up. We normally have two types of categories:

Source categories which indicate where files came from. These categories are hidden, are flat (no subcategories) and generally added by a template. For example Category:Images from Cleveland Museum of Art
Topic categories which indicate what is in the picture. These categories are not hidden, form a tree structure and are not added by a template. For example Category:Collections of the Cleveland Museum of Art

The category Category:Images from Auckland Museum mixes the two so should be split. To make things a bit more complicated, it seems that the naming of the category tree is not consistent. The root category is named Category:Auckland War Memorial Museum, but other categories use the short name. Split should be to:

Category:Images from Auckland Museum / Category:Images from Auckland War Memorial Museum for the source
Category:Collections of Auckland Museum / Category:Collections of Auckland War Memorial Museum for the topic tree. Subcategory of Category:Collections in New Zealand by museum

Bonus question: Do we want to include "the" in the category names or not? Multichill (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall, I had the impression that the Auckland War Memorial Museum is a separate entity from the main museum. It's probably on their website. --Fæ (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a separate entity; Auckland Museum is simply a shorter name for Auckland War Memorial Museum. — Hugh (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense to me. Having 88k images in the root direction and subcategories based on topic is a clear case of COM:OVERCAT. Some of the subcategories seem a little weird to me too. Category:Missions in Auckland Museum? Maybe keeping it as just "Auckland Museum" is easiest. It seems the formal name is "Auckland War Memorial Museum Tamaki Paenga Hira" - Themightyquill (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I believe the war museum and the main museum are different, so this mixes up two separate institutions which hold two separate archives, even if the digital contents are presented in the same catalogue. --Fæ (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's confusing. The museum uses two different names at the same time. They appear to have rebranded after building the war memorial building, while at the same time adopting Tāmaki Paenga Hira as a Maori name too. Per:

Auckland Museum was founded in 1852 as a Museum for the province of Auckland and was New Zealand's first Museum.

In 1929, a new Museum building was opened after funds raised to combine a war memorial for Auckland with a new building for Auckland Museum. The Museum uses both titles; Auckland War Memorial Museum is used for all formal communications such as annual reports, and on letterhead and other stationery. It is also used specifically in association with its war memorial function. The more informal title, Auckland Museum is used in some advertising and promotional contexts.

Yeah, no easy answer in that, especially for items which were catalogued before the rebranding, or for items which have nothing to do with the 'war memorial function', like ancient greek pots or a 19th C. woman's shawl. --Fæ (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly fine to keep the name Auckland Museum in the category. There is no separate "war museum", so that line of thought has no basis in fact. Auckland War Memorial Museum is our current name in full, but we usually speak about ourselves merely as Auckland Museum, just as the Met doesn't always call itself The Metropolitan Museum of Art. They don't have separate categories for items acquired before they 'rebranded' as The Met. I don't think we need to debate this further. — Hugh (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have no problem with doing the housekeeping for my uploads if there is a consensus. We just need to be clear about what is desired and stick to it. I would prefer any change to be implemented once the current upload project is completed, rather than shuffling stuff about in the middle of it, only because it's probably more effective in terms of volunteer effort to do it that way. --Fæ (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Just checking to see if the upload project is done. I have no idea how long these things take. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the upload project has finished - the number of images in the collection has been stable for a few months now. --Prosperosity (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Just wanted to check where this discussion got to, because some staff at Archives New Zealand seem to be starting a project using this model (where there are combined source and topic categories). I think my preference is to keep them seperate, but I'm a complete novice in terms of official policies. -- Ballofstring (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support splitting the category in two (Category:Collections of Auckland War Memorial Museum - a visible topic category for images sourced from the AWMM archives (i.e. the category as it is now), and Category:Images from Auckland War Memorial Museum, a hidden source category added to every image. The category trees seem to be causing issues with the GLAM tools used by the museum to track images (and like you say, the two topics are being conflated). Note: I have a conflict of interest (as the Wikimedian in Residence at Auckland War Memorial Museum). --Prosperosity (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support splitting, per Prosperosity. I also have a COI: I work at Auckland Museum. — Hugh (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosperosity, HughLilly, Ballofstring, and Multichill: I'm happy to create/split these categories, though I think there was agreement to use just Auckland Museum, since the name seems to vary a little. Anyone opposed? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'd recommend the full official 'Auckland War Memorial Museum' to match the article title at en.wikipedia.org, but either's fine as long as it's consistent. --Prosperosity (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the categories, but we now have 100k or more images in subcategories of Category:Collections of Auckland Museum that should be copied en mass back to Category:Images from Auckland Museum. Is it enough to search for all images containing the text "This image has been released as "CCBY" by Auckland Museum" ? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: why did you use the short name instead of the proper name as suggested above? I would use Category:Collections of Auckland War Memorial Museum and Category:Images from Auckland War Memorial Museum. The source category should probably be added through a template. Multichill (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: I think an easy way might be to flag anything using Institution:Auckland War Memorial Museum as needing the Images from Auckland Museum category. Do you know what's happened in the past when other institutions have needed to add a hidden category to their collections? --Prosperosity (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosperosity: if it's an actual partnership we use a template like {{TheMet}}, see Commons:Partnership templates for more examples. If it's just the source we can have a template like {{Yorck}}. In this case every file has | permission = This image has been released as "CCBY" by Auckland Museum. For details refer to the [[Commons:Batch_uploading/AucklandMuseumCCBY|Commons project page]]. on it. Probably easiest to replace that with a template that also adds the tracker category. Multichill (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there much difference between a formal/informal partnership? Depending on the definition you use, Auckland Museum does have a partnership in terms of the WikiCite grant from last year. Would it be an issue if I made the template myself? --Prosperosity (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth having Category:Files from Auckland Museum Flickr stream anymore? Maybe that's a separate discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's some museum content that doesn't fit within the AM Collections Online space (eg pictures from events, instead of specimen pictures), so I think keeping it for now would be fine. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Multichill (and ping @Tm: ), many of the files that have been transferred from Flickr are duplicates of images already in Category:Images from Auckland Museum. (6 are in use.) Should anything be done about deleting the duplicates? — Hugh (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usually don't worth the effort. Multichill (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosperosity: Are we good? Can I close the discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think so! At this point I'll see if I can get a partnership template for the Auckland Museum project, but I think at this stage we can close the discussion. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still see some leftover categories at Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Images_from_Auckland_Museum that should be renamed or merged. Multichill (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Multichill. Who can do this work? Aside from the three management categories—"copyright undetermined", "All Rights Reserved", and "cultural permissions"—I see no issue with recategorising those that remain. —Hugh (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the remaining others and just marked these three as hidden. Multichill (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the end Category:Images from Auckland Museum wasn't renamed, but it was split out. Thanks everyone for commenting and helping out. Multichill (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Florentine mosaic

en:Commesso says "Commesso, also referred to as Florentine mosaic, is a method..." but we have both Category:Florentine mosaic and Category:Commesso (art technique). Are they not redundant? Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, are synonymous. I think Florentine mosaic should redirect to Commesso (art technique)--Carlodell (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill and Carlodell: solution per enwiki would be the redirect to Category:Commesso (parentheses are redundant, because surname is inferior)--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: Yes, but generally there's a higher expectation of disambiguation on commons, since people (and bots) frequently categorize files without looking. I'd rather keep the parentheses, unless you're strongly opposed. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill:

Neutral. Solution is up to you--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Florentine mosaic redirected to Category:Commesso (art technique) Themightyquill (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Videos of the military

why with "the", not "Videos of military". I am not a native English speaker. See others: category:Videos by subject Estopedist1 (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case 'the' does not indicate a specific singular military entity, but instead all military topics as a whole. I can see it being an unusual English language quirk, but 'Videos of military' comes across more as 'Videos of military...' in that there is a noun to follow. There also may be regional variations of English where 'videos of military' would be fine. However, the current usage seems to be the most natural English title for this category. Josh (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination we have massively categories with "the", eg Category:Holidays in the military, Category:Hugs involving the military--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: withdrawn. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Floor mosaics

What's the difference betewen Category:Floor mosaics and Category:Mosaic floors? Category:Floor mosaics by country and Category:Mosaic floors by country‎? The difference should be made explicit, or they should be merged. Themightyquill (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: . Hi, at first sight : none. Imho synonyms but I am not a native english-spaker. Mosaic floor has more matches in english search engines. If they are redundant they should be merged with adaptation of all subcategories. --Bohème (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohème: In my humble E3L speaker opinion a mosaic floor is a floor entirely consisting of or covered with mosaic while a floor mosaic may be just a part of a floor (covering). For instance, I just uploaded a picture of something I would call a mosaic but which is just a small part of a hall floor.

So maybe Mosaic floors should be a subcategory of Floor mosaics? -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Renardo la vulpo: Thank you. That's certainly a logical difference. Essentially, "Mosaics in floors" vs "Whole floor mosaics". I'm not sure the distinction is especially useful on commons though. If "whole floor mosaics" is a sub-category of "mosaics in floors" what other parent category would it have? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your question about supercategories gave me an idea: Mosaic floors now has the supercategory Category:Pavements (architecture). So maybe that's what really distinguishes it from Floor mosaics (architectural technique vs. element of art)? We could rename it to Mosaic pavements or Mosaic pavements (architecture).

A couple of pictures might have to change categories, such as File:Convento Santo Domingo Domini canis (Buenos Aires).JPG. -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand, partly because Category:Pavements (architecture)'s purpose is somewhat unclear. Is this a mosaic floor or a floor mosaic? this? Surely mosaics don't need to be figurative - this is also a mosaic. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If my idea is not clear enough it's probably not really good… I am not at all an expert in architecture. You are right that mosaics need not be figurative but they should be a bit more artistic than a checkerboard; so in my opinion your first two examples are floor mosaics while the third might qualify as a mosaic floor.

What I meant is when the focus of a medium is on the pavement as a whole (not necessarily depicting all of it!) it might be in the mosaic floor category; if it is on a clear-cut motive it could be in the floor mosaic category. Just my ¢¢. If someone wants to join the two categories I will certainly not object. -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. To be simple, we probably should merge the nominated categories. At merged category hatnote, we can explain the difference if one can. Eg enwiki has only en:floor mosaic, but it is a redirect to "mosaic"--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is to keep the categories separate and clarify them. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2019/10

Navigation menu

Search