Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2022/08
deletion request...all images were actually sod roofs, with is different than an urban green roof HylgeriaK (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- I noticed you added them to Category:Sod roofs in the Faroe Islands (in case someone wants to look at them). As the category is empty, you could just add {{Speedy}}. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I created this category by mistake, not realising that "Category:Monuments and memorials in the Northern Territory" already exists. Motacilla (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Done: as per nom. --Yann (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Typo category *angys* (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- I added {{Speedy}} Enhancing999 (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
wrong category, right name is Category:Trams on line 12 in Frankfurt am Main Urmelbeauftragter (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, category already empty. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Typo category *angys* (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, empty category -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't see an explanation as to why this should redirect to Category:Buildings in North Macedonia. Geo Swan (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Withdrawing. Macedonia was officially renamed North Macedonia in 2019. Geo Swan (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawn by the user. -- CptViraj (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Category:Accipe... lector... Suetiae, Gotiae, Norvegiae, Prusiae, Pomeraniae, ducatus Megapolensis, Frisiae, Geldriae, Altae Marchiae, Lusatiae... descriptionem... - btv1b53093871d
[edit]A shorter name, please! And preferably not starting 'Accip', as it is a nuisance when sorting files into Category:Accipitridae and Category:Accipiter (@Gzen92Bot: ). MPF (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- It is the title of the document, in Latin. I can shorten the text easily, but not change the title (it's automated and I don't speak Latin!). Gzen92 (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @MPF: @Gzen92: , I consider these categories as "scan-folders". They names are not chosen well, because of the automated process, and this can't be helped, really. But two things can be done here:
- In the case of the latin-language category name above, with only two maps inside the category, I'd suggest to categorize them individually and remove the original category because that scan-folder will never have more than these two files. (It makes sense to have near-empty categories if you expect more files to eventually come in, but not in a case like this one.) For the individual files, go with "Maps from Gallica" (important!), then for example "Category:Old maps of Friesland|1562", "1560s maps of the Netherlands|1562", "<creator-name>/<Maps-by-creator>" (not applicable where there's the sine nomen comment, like here) and "Latin-language maps". Then afterwards, ditch the empty category. The source-link "btv1b53093871d" is unique and as long as it's not removed which should never happen, it allows potential re-matching the two files (for whatever obscure purpose) even if they land in totally different categories.
- Doing that first option is only okay with files that don't form an entire set/brochure/book/atlas/etc.! If such is the case, I'd instead rename the category, and then use the renamed one going forward. I have some examples from Gallica lined up: Category:Report of the under secretary for public lands on the work of the lands department during the year 1881 (Queensland) is still overwhelmingly long, but the original was even longer. And sometimes it's possible to make a short and snappy name like Category:Waarnemingen in den Indischen Oceaan (1889). Or Category:Plantas das cidades, portos, e fortalezas da conquista da India Oriental (~1650) For book titles, it's okay to have non-English category names, and the year is always nice to include, too.Compare the Category:Books from the British Library. The individual image-names are still the originals ("<old Category-name> (x of y)"), though, and I strongly suggest to keep them like that, to show how all these files are connected.
- All the best to you both, --Enyavar (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @MPF: @Gzen92: , I consider these categories as "scan-folders". They names are not chosen well, because of the automated process, and this can't be helped, really. But two things can be done here:
- @Gzen92 and Enyavar: Thanks! Renaming would be fine; what might be best is to put that source link btv1b53093871d at the start of the name, as this means the category won't pop up as a first HotCat suggestion when typing 'Acc'... in the HotCat box (the source of the problem!). How about Category:btv1b53093871d Accipe... lector... (1562 map)? Or even just Category:btv1b53093871d (1562 map)? - MPF (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- I looked at the maps (the second, "Frisland", is phantom island), I propose "Maps of North Sea and Baltic Sea - btv1b53093871d" quite simply. Gzen92 (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Gzen92: excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- I renamed the category and put the files back. It's good ? Gzen92 (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks at @Gzen92: for pointing out that Frisland is not Frisia but a phantom island. I had no idea, but now I came to a strong suspicion. Once upon a time, there was an old map of some foreign places, alone in a map folder sitting in the Bibliothèque du Roi. And at some point, back in the day, someone made the same error as me, wanted to file a strange single "Frisland map" into the right spot, and found a folder with a superficially similar-looking map, labeled "something something Frisia". Centuries ago, the two maps were matched by the wrong keyword, but they don't belong together. If you look a bit closer, you can see the differences: They have vastly different scales. The towns are drawn in a different style. The script patterns follow different stencils. The Nordic/Baltic map is an unadorned navigational chart with art of cities and mountains. The Frisia map additionally displays additional art of monsters, ships and forests, but no chart lines. And even the bibliographic notes on the border are different, "Gel 8940" vs. "Bf XIII". Yes, the maps could be from the same era and maybe even the same year. No guarantee. They could be from the same mapmaking office, maybe even the same author. Again no guarantee. But after a closer look at them, I say they're obviously not meant to be read in unison. Errors happen sometimes in all libraries. The Bibliothèque du roi is not the same today as it was in the 1540s. Look at this Pocket-Guide atlas, it got split and scanned into 17 different folders by Gallica, but here on Commons I could bring the content back together. Long message short: I'm clearly in favor of keeping these two unlike maps apart; no special category.
- Also, whenever there is a need to keep documents from Gallica together, we must name the new category as close to the original work title as possible. I linked examples above with the "Pocket-Guide" or the "Waarnemingen" map series. In this case, the folder name within Gallica seems to have been "Accipiter <unreadable> lector <unreadable> [all the placenames] <unreadable> descriptionem <unreadable>". Such was the input for Gallica's computer systems. Someone couldn't read the original handwriting, the error was possibly made over several stages of handling library cards and digitalization steps. In extreme cases like this one where all context got lost, I'd be supportive of Category:btv1b53093871d. --Enyavar (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- I renamed the category and put the files back. It's good ? Gzen92 (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Gzen92: excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- I looked at the maps (the second, "Frisland", is phantom island), I propose "Maps of North Sea and Baltic Sea - btv1b53093871d" quite simply. Gzen92 (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Gzen92 and Enyavar: Thanks! Renaming would be fine; what might be best is to put that source link btv1b53093871d at the start of the name, as this means the category won't pop up as a first HotCat suggestion when typing 'Acc'... in the HotCat box (the source of the problem!). How about Category:btv1b53093871d Accipe... lector... (1562 map)? Or even just Category:btv1b53093871d (1562 map)? - MPF (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted by Yann--A1Cafel (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
All the other countries use the format with «children» before «playing». 217.117.125.83 19:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree Thanks for the good point! I'm sorry I didn't notice. --Benzoyl (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
renamed. Other similar cases at Category:Children playing by country also renamed Estopedist1 (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The category name refers to w:nl:Lilian Ferrier, a former minister van Onderwijs. Category:Lilian Ferrier already exists. Joofjoof (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
not 100% sure we need this redirect, but Google gives several hits. Redirected Estopedist1 (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
redundant with Category:Świętego Mikołaja Square in Bielsko-Biała Gaj777 talk 08:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- I redirected it Enhancing999 (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
redirected Estopedist1 (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Existing page technical errors when creating Category with wrong (title Category:The Notorious B.I.G.) -- Leonaardog (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Question. @Leonaardog: There is nothing left the original name from what I can tell. Isn't this just a template:badname situation? I see the wikidata links between the page and the category are there which is minor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, @Ricky81682: , It was a technical error of mine instead of analyzing the data first in Wikidata I quickly created the category. I was editing The Notorious BIG article and clicked to category and it didn't show up no category for the author and I thought there were no elements related to him yet. I apologize. Delete since the title is wrong and does not serve to direct for main category. I changed my mind i think it would be nice to redirect to the main category what do you think? -- Leonaardog (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to do a category redirect, that's fine but I don't think we need a full discussion about it. The issue is that the BIG category is linked to the current category which is a bit silly, but that's on Wikidata. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, @Ricky81682: , I don't know how to do it, please do it Redirect. -- Leonaardog (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to do a category redirect, that's fine but I don't think we need a full discussion about it. The issue is that the BIG category is linked to the current category which is a bit silly, but that's on Wikidata. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, @Ricky81682: , It was a technical error of mine instead of analyzing the data first in Wikidata I quickly created the category. I was editing The Notorious BIG article and clicked to category and it didn't show up no category for the author and I thought there were no elements related to him yet. I apologize. Delete since the title is wrong and does not serve to direct for main category. I changed my mind i think it would be nice to redirect to the main category what do you think? -- Leonaardog (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Redirected. Wikidata entry is corrected Estopedist1 (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
This neighborhood is now called "East Bde Maka Ska", see wikipedia article for reference thibaultmol (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support renaming of category to East Bde Maka Ska, Minneapolis. Eco84 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Renamed. Solution per enwiki and in line with parent Category:Neighborhoods in Minneapolis Estopedist1 (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
This category duplicates "Category:Kriegsgräberstätte Reimsbach", which was created four years earlier. Motacilla (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Redirected Estopedist1 (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
wrong category, right name is Category:Trams on line 11 in Frankfurt am Main Urmelbeauftragter (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Empty category Dronebogus (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
This seems to be a mix of source category (images contributed by ETH BIB, the main one is hidden) and a topical category (images about a specific railway station). I don't think it's a good idea to combine them. Just merge this one back into the main topical and source category. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- I upmerged this into Category:Historical images of Genève Cornavin railway station and Category:Media contributed by the ETH-Bibliothek. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Unclear use case, promotion only Emu (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
This category seems to have the same problem as the one discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/08/Category:ETH-BIB Genève-Cornavin. Let's avoid creating more of these. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC) I upmerged the following ones accordingly, to Category:Media contributed by the ETH-Bibliothek and a second categories (when needed).
- Category:ETH-BIB Genève-Cointrin
- Category:ETH-BIB Genève-Lignon
- Category:ETH-BIB Genève
- Category:ETH-BIB canton de Genève
Enhancing999 (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted by Ruthven--A1Cafel (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Empty category Wilfredor (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Please delete. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
This seems to be the only category for "social condition in painting" by century. It's a very vague category and separate categorization to me. It seems like the category could be deleted/merged into Category:17th-century genre paintings which in theory covers everyday life. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted as empty. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
To be deleted (spelling error) : the species is P. hominis (not humanis) A1AA1A (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted as empty. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Empty category Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted as empty. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
The three files in the category were incorrectly categorized and then this unnecessary subcategory was created by the same User. Please, delete this empty category. Ooligan (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Empty category *angys* (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Uncategorized category without any description. Leyo 18:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Removed it from the above and tagged the category for speedy deletion. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Move Page Riquix (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Titel spelling // Meditation instead of mediation. The second is an arranging in a law conflict. "Vivekananda Rock Memorial meditation hall"--Riquix (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- moved it. It will take a few days for the bot to update the files/links. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Needs to be deleted, accidentally wrote Langton instead of Worth Matravers Endim8 (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Empty category for a non-notable video game. Because the video game in question is not freely licensed, this category is likely to remain empty forever, and should be deleted as unnecessary clutter. 2001:14BB:64C:14D4:8C7D:99F5:107A:97F6 08:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete please, wrong name created by mistake. DnaX (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion.It is not in English and I have created it by mistake Ivonna Nowicka (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Underpopulated category of a musician that may not be notable enough. MathXplore (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Empty category Wilfredor (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- I do not agree to delete this category. The photo contest is still ongoing till the end of October 2022, so it is normal that it is still empty for the time being. Geert Van Pamel (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I mis-typed "HMSC" instead of "HMCS". Please feel free to delete this category! Motacilla (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Empty category. Used to contain a few files, which were moved to "Green and yellow ribbon bars" 1000mm (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
fail WP:GNG Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandro Salsano closed as delete Contribuine34 (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Commons categories do not follow the same eligibility criteria as Wikipedia articles. Until there are files which could fit in the category, there is no reason to delete it. I see that most files here were nominated for deletion as self-promotion. When that is done for all files (and not just through manual emptying such as this), and only then, then the category may be deleted. Place Clichy 13:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep for now, even if Commons does have a notability criteria, see Commons:Category inclusion criteria, 20 files is more than enough but if they are deleted this can then be deleted as empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
category name inconsistent with others "USA" -> "United States"--see parent categories of this category. Remedy is to move to Category:Black and white photographs of women holding babies in the United States. DanielPenfield (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support rename. I would have just done the rename -- seems noncontroversial. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- It was created and is maintained by a single contributor. Typically this means resistance. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- Never make assumptions - I have no problem with a name change!! Headlock0225 (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- It was created and is maintained by a single contributor. Typically this means resistance. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Renamed. CommonsDelinker has been instructed to do the move. —howcheng {chat} 21:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC
Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/05/Category:Cursed images was today closed as delete, rather than merely being made hidden, with concerns that the category was too subjective, and that in some cases it was being applied to cultural artifacts and people with unusual physical features.
This older, hidden category has the same issues. Images come and go from it as passing editors disagree on whether something or someone is particularly weird, and it doesn't seem very strenuously moderated: some of the photos added around the time of the category's creation in 2015 were an unremarkable portrait of an elderly Indian man and a large number of pictures of people performing at or just attending LGBT pride events (eg. File:Cardiff Mardi Gras 2010 MMB 20 Ruby White.jpg, File:Nottinghamshire Pride 2011 MMB 04.jpg), all of which remained in place until 2021. I've just now removed File:The Mummified Monk.jpg, a photo of the preserved body of Buddhist monk Luang Pho Daeng, who died in 1973.
I don't think it's a great idea for Commons to have an official yet anonymous and largely unmoderated category for "weird" people and objects. We'd be being a lot more careful if we were running a front page "weird photo of the day". Lord Belbury (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete I wasn't aware of this category until now and I am surprised to see this. As of now the category includes photographs of many people who are by inclusion associated with weirdness. This does not correspond well with the values of our movement. Besides, I agree that we should restrict ourselves to categories with objective criteria – independently from being hidden or not. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)- Delete Too subjective, and who knew this existed? --SHB2000 (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Subjective, and potentially insulting/demeaning. Llwyld (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Can this category be deleted? It is empty, also the gallery page Municipio (Lucca) is empty. JopkeB (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- I tagged the gallery as empty to get it deleted. When that's gone, the category should be able to be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'd keep it. As apparently it gets confused with another one. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Auntof6 and Enhancing999 for joining this discussion. Thanks, Auntof6, for deleting the gallery page. How to go on? Luckily I found two files on Commons for this category, so the category can stay. But I would propose to rename this category to Category:Palazzo Orsetti because both the Wikidata item and the IT-WP page are called Palazzo Orsetti. And if Lucca ever decides to have the town hall moved to another building, then on Commons it is not right anymore, while the building stays the same. --JopkeB (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Since there was no answer to my proposal, I renamed the category. --JopkeB (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- This category cannot be deleted, it has now two files and it had already a meaningful remark not to confuse it with another building.
- Since the gallery page was empty, it has been deleted.
- This category has been renamed to Category:Palazzo Orsetti because that is the usual name for this building.
- Category:April 1970 events in Japan
- Category:May 1970 events in Japan
- Category:June 1970 events in Japan
- Category:August 1970 events in Japan
- Category:September 1970 events in Japan
I'm nominating each of the March through September 1970 events in Japan category (there is no July one oddly) as too specific. These six categories have one event, are one of three events in 1970 events in Japan and are the only events for March 1970 events, and March 1970 in Japan, etc. I think all six categories can be deleted and this one item can be upmerged. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Support Per the nominator. As the current categories are way to granular. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted Multichill (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Can someone please provide some evidence that this place actually exists and isn't just a non-exiting historical town that was located where Watkins Glen is now or a massive troll? Because from what I've been able to find for all intents and purposes Dix seems to just be Watkins Glen. According to http://www.townofdix.com/ it's address is Watkins Glen, the Dix town board members addresses are all in Watkins Glen, even the official Schuler County website for Dix, https://www.schuylercounty.us/497/Town-of-Dix, says that it's located in Watkins Glen. So at least from what I can tell there's zero evidence Dix actually exists and/or isn't just Watkins Glen. If it doesn't and/or turns out to be Watkins Glen, then this category should be deleted and everything in it should be transferred to Category:Watkins Glen, New York. Adamant1 (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Speedy keep. A ten-second detour to Wikipedia suffices to prove that Dix is a real place. A ten-second look at the URLs provided above by Adamant1 does prove that the Town of Dix's municipal offices are located in the village of Watkins Glen, and the town board members reside there (which is to be expected given that the village is an integral part of the town and its population center, and the ZIP code Watkins Glen, NY 14891 covers most of the town of Dix) but, of course, does not prove the nonexistence of the Town of Dix (why would anyone bother setting up an official website for a fictional town?) See my user talk page for a full accounting of the genesis of this spurious CfD entry. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- None of the references in the English Wikipedia support the existence of the place. Some of the refs are even dead links. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Auntof6 - The County Maps page of the official Schuyler County website links to a map of the Town of Dix, which clearly shows the Village of Watkins Glen (in pink) being located within, but not coterminous with, the town. I don't know how much more official of a source there is than that. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Andre Carrotflower: OK, but I didn't say there weren't any references anywhere. I said that the ones actually in the English Wikipedia article don't support the existence of the town. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- An Administrator of all people should know that Wikipedia itself isn't an authoritative source of information for anything. It's laughable that your trying to act like it is. I'll ask you the same question here that I asked you on your talk page, if the boundary map for Dix that you linked to is correct then why are most or all of the addresses for places located inside the boundary for Watkins Glen instead of Dix? Do the people who run the race track, kennel, and many other locations in what your claiming is Dix that have Watkins Glen addresses just not know where they are located? Or maybe Schuyler County just doesn't know what it's own boundaries are and gave literally everyone the wrong addresses? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Auntof6 - Understood. And just to make sure all my i's are dotted and t's crossed, I'm aware that the pink section of the Town of Dix map is labeled as a "village" but not specifically "Watkins Glen". Here's a PDF of the official zoning map from the official website of the Village of Watkins Glen clearly covering the same boundaries as the pink section on the town map.
- Adamant1 My above comment to Auntof6 provided copious non-Wikipedia-based proof of the town's existence as a separate entity from the village. Even going beyond that, though, the mere idea that an official website for a fictional town would be set up, and prominently linked to from the official website of the county that the town is located in, and that there would also exist a separate official website for the village of Watkins Glen, and that all three of those websites would contain maps clearly delineating the town's existence as a separate entity from the village, and that this would all be set up years ahead of time - for what purpose? as part of some bizarre hoax at your expense? - strains credulity past the breaking point and, if sincere, smacks of conspiratorial thinking.
- It also explained that Watkins Glen's ZIP code covers most of the town (source: Google Maps, unless you think they're in on the conspiracy too), so most mailing addresses within the town are routed to Watkins Glen as it's the nearest place with a post office. This is common in the United States, especially in rural areas such as Schuyler County.
- Debating in good faith requires you not to selectively ignore points that were previously brought up by your opponent that don't jibe with your position. Either engage in this debate in good faith or don't do so at all.
- The fact that you persist in believing this is some elaborate hoax smacks of conspiratorial thinking. Administrative boundaries change and go away all the time. There's nothing conspiratorial about it either. Acting like that's not the case or that I'm somehow treating this as a massive conspiracy is just bad faithed. Either that, or your just ignorant as to how city planning works. If you are just unware that towns can either disincorporate or be absorbed into neighboring ones then I really wonder why your involved in this discussion in the first place and I'd kindly ask that you find other things that you aren't ignorant about to comment on.
- most mailing addresses within the town are routed to Watkins Glen as it's the nearest place with a post office. That's patently false. There's a post office in Beaver Dams which is like a 3 minute drive from the kennel compared to a 12 minute drive from the kennel to Watkins Glen. So that's not the reason the Kennel's address is Watkins Glen. In the meantime, like I said before Van Zandt Hollow is officially located in Watkins Glen, despite it being on the far north western side of what your claiming is Dix. No one is sending a nature preserve/valley mail. They are using the address to find out where it's located on the map though. Otherwise you'd have to argue that the county of Schuyler County is intentionally miss-leading people by saying Van Zandt Hollow is in Watkins Glen when it isn't.
- One more point, Dix is supposedly a town that contains the village of Watkins Glen inside of it. But like you said everything outside of Watkins Glen proper is rural areas. Montour Falls is directly south of Watkins Glen and it's not a part of Dix. There's nothing above what your claiming is the boundary of Watkins Glen except a lake. There's a campground to the east of it and a state park to the west. The rest is just farmland. So where exactly is this supposed town of Dix located if it's not Watkins Glen? Even if I grant you that the boundary of Dix is based on something that actually exists or existed at some point, how exactly is a bunch of farmland, a lake, or a state park a town and/or an urban area? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Funny you should mention "how city planning works" as that's what I got my master's degree in. Yes, municipal boundaries change sometimes, but per New York State law, such boundary changes need to be filed with the Department of State's Local Law division (per [1]; see under "Cities and Towns" heading). There's nothing in the NYS Department of State Local Law Filings database that indicates any recent boundary changes for Dix. Meanwhile, this story about an accused child sex offender on mytwintiers.com indicates that the Town of Dix itself still existed at least as of a day ago, and has a functioning government (including at least a town court).
- "So where exactly is this supposed town of Dix located if it's not Watkins Glen?" Once again, here's the official town map I linked to earlier: [2]
- "Even if I grant you that the boundary of Dix is based on something that actually exists or existed at some point, how exactly is a bunch of farmland, a lake, or a state park a town and/or an urban area?" Because the entire surface area of New York is made up of cities and towns. To repeat, there is literally no patch of land in the state, whether urban, suburban or rural, that is not part of either a city or a town. Here is a vector map of all of them, based on information from the New York State Office of Information Technology Services.
- Oh, almost forgot. Here is the part of the United States Postal Service website where, if you type in 14891, it shows that "Watkins Glen, NY" is the only allowable city name for mail addressed to that ZIP code. Then compare the Google Map link I provided above with the vector map I also linked to, and you'll see that ZIP code 14891 (and, therefore, mailing addresses given as "Watkins Glen, NY") covers basically the entire town of Dix. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, municipal boundaries change sometimes ("rarely" per..... I'd be interested to know what "rarely" means in that context. Unfortunately I couldn't find anywhere that lists how many towns in New York have dissolved over a certain period of time, but "rarely" could mean literally anything. That said, my thesis here isn't that Dix necessarily dissolved as an administrative entity, but more that it become/changed it's name to Watkins Glen essentially dissolving Watkins Glen into it. A simple name change isn't necessarily a desolation. Supposedly like 2 villages are dissolved a year in New York. So it's not that far fetched that Watkins Glen was dissolved and Dix just changed it's name at some point. Obviously not everyone or everything automatically catches up at exactly the same time when a place is renamed or changed. Especially if your talking about boundaries in OpenStreetMaps (the one for Watkins Glen was added 13 years ago). In the meantime seems to come up if I search for Dix, New York in Google Maps. Although that could just be me.
- Meanwhile, this story about an accused child groper on mytwintiers.com] indicates that... I mean, I could do that and to a much more effective degree. Like, meanwhile if I search Google News for "Dix, New York" nothing comes up but there's 144,000 articles when I search for "Watkins Glen, New York." If Dix was actually a think you'd think those numbers would be reversed. Also, if I search for "Dix, New York newspaper" there's jack squat. Yet "Watkins glen, New York newspaper" comes up with many results, including https://www.observer-review.com/, https://www.newsbreak.com/channels/watkins-glen-ny (zero results for "Dix, New York" on that site BTW), https://www.fingerlakes1.com/category/schuyler-county/watkins-glen/ (That one has a whole page for Watkins Glen articles and apparently only one result for the word "Dix"). I'm sure you get my point. Essentially, Dix is supposedly an exiting town, yet weirdly it doesn't have any local news outlets and barely comes in search results if it even does at all. Except for your one cherry picked article about a child groper. "Shrug." As a side to that, if you do a search for "Dix" on the Watkins Glen chambers of commerce's website nothing comes up either. Which just seems weird. For all intents and purposes Dix literally doesn't exist. Otherwise I'd be interested to know why you think it doesn't seem to come up in searches anywhere.
- the entire land area of New York is made up of cities, Indian reservations, and towns, some of the latter of which contain one or more villages. Wow, you mean states are made up of smaller administrative boundaries? Golly gosh, who would have thunk? you really do learn something new every day.
- is a vector map of all of them, based on information from the United States Geological Survey. I can't speak specifically to the accuracy of New York's data sources, but the USGS is notoriously inaccurate and out of date. That said, I was actually looking at a random map from some New York county website on ArchGis a few weeks ago and the data was from like 1899. Unless they meant 1999, but that's still not super recent.
- Adamant1, what exactly are you even trying to do here? Being ignorant about the United States does not entitle you to make a fuss how things work over there. Thanks to WP, even here in Europe I am able to read up and understand the concept of towns/townships, without ever having left the continent. The whole concept is laid out in en:Civil township where it is stated that in New York, such Civil Townships are called "Towns". You don't need an urban area present to make something a town. The town of en:Red House, New York, has a population of 27 according to this list. Yes, that is the same amount of people like the ones who live in de:Mosebolle which is as rural as it can get. So what if "towns" are not universally defined? There IS a definition for "town" in NY state, and en:Dix, New York fulfills it, apparently since 1835. I see the burden of proving the town's non-existence with you. --Enyavar (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Being ignorant about the United States does not entitle you to make a fuss how things work over there. I'm not really sure what's that in reference to since I live in America and actually have a background that's relevant to this subject area. Plus, I know how to do a Google search like everyone else. See my second comment above your message for exactly what I'm trying to do here. To give you a hint find information about Dix to show it actually exists, not a bunch of empty search results or references to Watkins Glen. Honestly I made that pretty clear in my first message, which you apparently didn't read.
- There IS a definition for "town" in NY state At the end of the day how NY state defines "town" is a secondary strawman. The reason I opened this RfC had nothing to do with clarifying NY states definitions of it's administrative boundaries. Otherwise your free to point to where I said "this category should be deleted and everything in it should be transferred to Category:Watkins Glen, New York if no one can tell me how NY state defines a town."
- I see the burden of proving the town's non-existence with you. I'm sure you know there isn't a way to prove a negative and that's not how this works either. That said, I think I've pretty adequately provided the context for why I think it doesn't exist (again, see my second comment in the message above yours for some examples of it's "non-existence"). Your more then welcome to prove me wrong by showing it does though. I'm more then willing to provide some examples of what type of evidence would show it exists if you want me to. A good starting point would be to answer why you think it doesn't come up in search results, including on Websites that are based in Watkins Glen. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- "Your [sic] more then [sic] welcome to prove me wrong by showing it does though" - I gave you an official town website and map, an official county website mentioning the town, an official state GIS map showing the town, a news report from two days ago with Dix as the dateline and mentioning the existence of a Dix Town Court, and a searchable New York State Department of State database containing no information on any recent changes in the town's boundaries or dissolution of the town, which would be legally required to be in that database if it existed. If you don't consider all of that information, all derived from official government sources, to be enough to prove the town's existence, then you're simply not willing for it to be proven to you, and what we're doing here isn't really a debate. Now, please, at long last, can some admin come by here and put this discussion out of its misery? -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I gave you an official town website I assume your talking about http://www.townofdix.com/. If so, I'm not saying it isn't official but it's a random .com website hosted on GoDaddy and made with Website Builder. Most websites for towns in New York are .gov, professionally made, and not being hosted on GoDaddy.
- "Your [sic] more then [sic] welcome to prove me wrong by showing it does though" - I gave you an official town website and map, an official county website mentioning the town, an official state GIS map showing the town, a news report from two days ago with Dix as the dateline and mentioning the existence of a Dix Town Court, and a searchable New York State Department of State database containing no information on any recent changes in the town's boundaries or dissolution of the town, which would be legally required to be in that database if it existed. If you don't consider all of that information, all derived from official government sources, to be enough to prove the town's existence, then you're simply not willing for it to be proven to you, and what we're doing here isn't really a debate. Now, please, at long last, can some admin come by here and put this discussion out of its misery? -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I gave you a news report from two days ago with Dix as the dateline and mentioning the existence of a Dix Town Court And I gave you like 8 examples of news websites that specifically mention Watkins Glen and don't have any mention of Dix. Why does your one example prove your right but my 8 examples not prove anything in the other direction? If anything your the one not willing to change your opinion. If Dix exists, cool. I'm actually pretty reasonable about this and am more then willing to change my mind if you can provide actual evidence that it does. Show me a Dix newspaper. Show me a map from a reputable source that has the boundary of Dix on it. Provide an actual reason for why the kennel has a Watkins Glen address. Give me a reasonable answer for why you think Dix doesn't come up in searches, including on local Watkins Glen websites. I'm more then willing to accept any of that if it actually makes sense.
- Why would I accept that the kennel's address is Watkins Glen due to it being the nearest place with a post office when there's a post office in Beaver Dams literally two blocks away though? There's a huge difference between being proven wrong versus one side just spouting obvious nonsense and then crying foul when their nonsense isn't immediately taken at face value as the 100%, undeniable truth. Literally all you've done is the later. It's not that I'm being unreasonable though. It's that the "evidence" your providing is nonsensical cherry picking that doesn't prove anything. Sorry, but that's totally on you. Hell, there isn't even any results for "Dix, New York" on Twitter even though they supposedly have a Twitter page. I can guarantee your only response to that fact would be to ignore it cry foul about how I'm just not willing be proven wrong or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Your standards of proof are unreasonably high, and it is evident that for any source I come up with, you will come up with a reason why it's not valid. Therefore, this is not a good-faith debate and not a productive use of my time. It is now 3:38 AM where I live, and I have literally wasted my entire day dealing with your quite frankly embarrassing inability to tolerate losing a debate. Further disruptive behavior will have to be dealt with by another admin. I am exhausted and going to bed. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Totally. The existence of a local newspaper is such an unreasonably high standard of evidence to show a town exists. Sure dude, whatever you say. Yet you can't even answer a simple question about why Dix doesn't come up in searches anywhere. If anything your the one being disruptive. Whatever part of your day you've wasted on this is totally on you. I didn't ask for your input. Nor did I want it. You weren't obligated to join this discussion and you added absolutely nothing useful to it either. Literally all you've done since the start of this is attack me and act defensive. Maybe do both of us a favor and skip it next time. It's not like I didn't have better things to do with my day then waste it countering your obviously false, defensive crap. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Adamant1, given it was you who started this discussion on a category created by Andre, you very much forced this discussion on him even if you two hadn't been discussing Watkins Glen yesterday. But given your conviction of the town's non-existence, please achieve the deletion of Dix in all of Wikipedia's language versions, and when you're finished with that little task, we can continue here. After all, Commons is the media repository for WP, and stuff can't be deleted as long as it is in use in the projects. --Enyavar (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't really gear my edits toward catering to the preferences of whomever created the category originally. Nor was or is there a guaranteed outcome to this either. Nothing about this required his input or participation. Someone else could have commented and made the same points he did without the vitriol. It's not on me that he came into the discussion from the start purely to grind an axe. I can almost guarantee that if he hadn't of participated other people would have and the discussions would probably be over by now. If that meant deleting the category or not. Really, I could ultimately care less either way what the outcome of this is.
- Adamant1, given it was you who started this discussion on a category created by Andre, you very much forced this discussion on him even if you two hadn't been discussing Watkins Glen yesterday. But given your conviction of the town's non-existence, please achieve the deletion of Dix in all of Wikipedia's language versions, and when you're finished with that little task, we can continue here. After all, Commons is the media repository for WP, and stuff can't be deleted as long as it is in use in the projects. --Enyavar (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Totally. The existence of a local newspaper is such an unreasonably high standard of evidence to show a town exists. Sure dude, whatever you say. Yet you can't even answer a simple question about why Dix doesn't come up in searches anywhere. If anything your the one being disruptive. Whatever part of your day you've wasted on this is totally on you. I didn't ask for your input. Nor did I want it. You weren't obligated to join this discussion and you added absolutely nothing useful to it either. Literally all you've done since the start of this is attack me and act defensive. Maybe do both of us a favor and skip it next time. It's not like I didn't have better things to do with my day then waste it countering your obviously false, defensive crap. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Your standards of proof are unreasonably high, and it is evident that for any source I come up with, you will come up with a reason why it's not valid. Therefore, this is not a good-faith debate and not a productive use of my time. It is now 3:38 AM where I live, and I have literally wasted my entire day dealing with your quite frankly embarrassing inability to tolerate losing a debate. Further disruptive behavior will have to be dealt with by another admin. I am exhausted and going to bed. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Outside of that your assertion that Commons is Wikimedia's media repository and that means I should deal with it on Wikipedia first is nonsense for several reasons. One, they are separate projects and how Wikipedia does things have zero bearing on how things are done on Commons. Two, this CfD has absolutely nothing to do with "media." Let alone have said anything about deleting any "media" related to Dix, Watkins Glen, or anything else for that matter.
- Three, sorry, but you don't get to dictate the terms of who participates in this discussion or how. If "you" don't want to continue this, then be my guest and see your way out of it. Everyone else (including me) is free to participate in the discussion or not however they see fit to though. If you have an issue with that, cool. Just stay out of it then. This isn't your or Andre Carrotflower's show though dude. Both of you had your chances to discuss it before I opened the CfD. As far as my side of it goes, it's not like I didn't try to talk to Andre Carrotflower about this whole thing before I opened this. He wasn't willing to discuss things though. So I decided to get feedback about it from people who were. That's just how this works. No one is obligated to sit through other people's defensive, dishonest drama just so they can resolve a disagreement. Now I'd appreciate it if you stopped making this personal and commented on the actual topic of the CfD, if Dix actually exists or not. This isn't about me or the prior dispute with Andre Carrotflower. The repeated attempts to make this personal is getting disruptive. So I'd appreciate it if it stopped now and we got back on topic. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- No one is obligated to sit through other people's defensive, dishonest drama just so they can resolve a disagreement. - Now that is the spirit, let's wrap it up. On the actual topic of this CfD: Keep because no mention can be found that Dix was dissolved into Watkins Glen in the recent years, and the place definitely existed in the past, if only as the administrative shell-district around Watkins Glen. So until otherwise proven, the place's continued existence seems much less far fetched to me than its sudden and unmentioned dissolution. --Enyavar (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Now I'd appreciate it if you... commented on the actual topic of the CfD, if Dix actually exists or not - But that's the whole crux of the issue here. There is no genuine dispute over the existence of the Town of Dix. I'm willing to accept that this CfD may initially have been made in good faith, but over the course of this discussion, a cornucopia of ironclad evidence for the town's existence has been provided, derived from official government sources that would be readily accepted as reliable by any intellectually honest publication. Now it's important to note that disruptive behavior doesn't always have to take the form of swearing, personal attacks, threats, or the like, and we've now reached the point in this discussion where your persistence in questioning the town's existence and the validity of my sources is itself disruptive. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- There is no genuine dispute over the existence of the Town of Dix. Can you point out where I said there was a "dispute" over the existence of the town of Dix? Because I've been pretty clear from the start of this that I think the town of Dix probably existence, but just recently changed it's boundaries to widen the area of it covered by Watkins Glen. I've never disputed that Dix existed at one point or claimed it's purely a hoax though. I simply asked if people could find references showing it exists and what it's actual boundaries are, because there's clearly some uncertainty about what area is purely Dix and what is Dix/Watkkins Glen. It seems like you and a few other people are boxing ghosts based on your opinions of assertions I haven't actually made anywhere in the meantime.
- Now I'd appreciate it if you... commented on the actual topic of the CfD, if Dix actually exists or not - But that's the whole crux of the issue here. There is no genuine dispute over the existence of the Town of Dix. I'm willing to accept that this CfD may initially have been made in good faith, but over the course of this discussion, a cornucopia of ironclad evidence for the town's existence has been provided, derived from official government sources that would be readily accepted as reliable by any intellectually honest publication. Now it's important to note that disruptive behavior doesn't always have to take the form of swearing, personal attacks, threats, or the like, and we've now reached the point in this discussion where your persistence in questioning the town's existence and the validity of my sources is itself disruptive. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- No one is obligated to sit through other people's defensive, dishonest drama just so they can resolve a disagreement. - Now that is the spirit, let's wrap it up. On the actual topic of this CfD:
- Three, sorry, but you don't get to dictate the terms of who participates in this discussion or how. If "you" don't want to continue this, then be my guest and see your way out of it. Everyone else (including me) is free to participate in the discussion or not however they see fit to though. If you have an issue with that, cool. Just stay out of it then. This isn't your or Andre Carrotflower's show though dude. Both of you had your chances to discuss it before I opened the CfD. As far as my side of it goes, it's not like I didn't try to talk to Andre Carrotflower about this whole thing before I opened this. He wasn't willing to discuss things though. So I decided to get feedback about it from people who were. That's just how this works. No one is obligated to sit through other people's defensive, dishonest drama just so they can resolve a disagreement. Now I'd appreciate it if you stopped making this personal and commented on the actual topic of the CfD, if Dix actually exists or not. This isn't about me or the prior dispute with Andre Carrotflower. The repeated attempts to make this personal is getting disruptive. So I'd appreciate it if it stopped now and we got back on topic. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Also, does there have to be a "dispute" about something for someone to open a CfD? The last time I knew people could open CfD if they wanted feedback/clarity from other people in the community about the topic of the category. What exactly was wrong or disruptive about me doing that? I just thought people clarifying things if they could would help resolve the question of if the category for the state park should go in Category:Watkins Glen, New York or not. Since it makes a huge difference to that if the park is in Watkins Glen or Dix. Again, what exactly is disruptive about that? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Found mentions on official websites within seconds, as well as advertisements for vacation homes. All part of a widespread hoax? If so, we really want this category! Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - It's on the county website. Show that the county website isn't real or that it's outdated, or that's just the end of the conversation. The overlap with Watkins Glen is just based on a misunderstanding of how that all works. Historical villages sometimes straddle multiple municipalities. sometimes municipalities share post offices, yada yada. — Rhododendrites talk | 15:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Show that the county website isn't real or that it's outdated Just an FYI, but the map of Dix on the county website is from 2012. Which isn't super recent. If you do a search on the same website for Dix the second result is a link to a Town of Dix Zoning map from 2015 but it's a dead link. There isn't really anything else meaningful in the search results for Dix besides that. Just a tone of spreadsheets that don't have anything to do with Dix. Which I find rather odd. If I was to guess something changed between 2012 and now about the area. The zoning map being a dead link makes me think it probably relates to zoning. You can chalk it up to me just misunderstanding how boundaries overlap or whatever fine, but it's still suspicious that only thing meaningful the county website has about Dix is in it's search results is a dead link to a zoning map from 7 years ago. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- You have a hunch. That's good enough for you to conduct an investigation, find evidence, and bring that evidence here. It's not enough to justify this sort of time sink without evidence (a deadlink and a map being 10 years old is not evidence of anything). I don't plan on replying further in this thread. — Rhododendrites talk | 18:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Show that the county website isn't real or that it's outdated Just an FYI, but the map of Dix on the county website is from 2012. Which isn't super recent. If you do a search on the same website for Dix the second result is a link to a Town of Dix Zoning map from 2015 but it's a dead link. There isn't really anything else meaningful in the search results for Dix besides that. Just a tone of spreadsheets that don't have anything to do with Dix. Which I find rather odd. If I was to guess something changed between 2012 and now about the area. The zoning map being a dead link makes me think it probably relates to zoning. You can chalk it up to me just misunderstanding how boundaries overlap or whatever fine, but it's still suspicious that only thing meaningful the county website has about Dix is in it's search results is a dead link to a zoning map from 7 years ago. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Our job here is to categorize media not to play Sherlock Holmes. Adamant1 is free to request the English article be deleted as fake but I think Adamant1 knows how badly that would go. Evidence indicates that this is a reasonable and useful categorization. Also, don't start with "Can someone please provide some evidence that this place actually exists" and then say "I've been pretty clear from the start of this that I think the town of Dix probably existence" when called out on it. If you think the place exists, then withdraw this nonsense and get into a discussion per image or per category about whether this fits a boundary for it (if it is not the current boundary, who cares? it is a categorization that makes sense either way). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. "Adamant1 is free to request the English article be deleted" - no, he isn't. Adamant1 is topic-banned from deletion discussions on en.wiki. Of course, that would suggest not performing such backdoor deletion attempts on Commons either... SnowFire (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Real place, and I found this place on the county website. It even has an English Wikipedia article that's well-sourced. If that's not enough info to validify this location, then there's nothing else that can be done. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- @SHB2000: It's good you found that it's a real place, but I disagree that the English Wikipedia article is well sourced. The sites used by the references are to places that are reliable sources, but if you actually look at them, none of them support the existence of the town. For example, two of them are dead links (I just tagged them as such in the article) and others link to the general page for a site rather than a page with info about Dix. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- As if the US Census Bureau alone wasn't reliable enough... SHB2000 (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- @SHB2000: The Census Bureau is a reliable source, but my point is that the reference pointing to it doesn't support the existence of a town called Dix. It lists a CDP called Dix Hills, but that isn't the same as far as I can tell. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- And as if what Rhododendrites and ACF's arguments also weren't enough for you. Anyway, I don't expect on replying further in this thread unless absolutely necessary. SHB2000 (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- @SHB2000: The Census Bureau is a reliable source, but my point is that the reference pointing to it doesn't support the existence of a town called Dix. It lists a CDP called Dix Hills, but that isn't the same as far as I can tell. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- If the English Wikipedia article is not well sourced, then that is an issue for the English Wikipedia, not for Commons. If the page is a hoax, on the other hand, then this deletion discussion may be warranted. However, there are plenty of sources (such as the county's own website) that indicate that Dix is not merely a hoax, as mentioned by other users above. Epicgenius (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- As if the US Census Bureau alone wasn't reliable enough... SHB2000 (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- @SHB2000: It's good you found that it's a real place, but I disagree that the English Wikipedia article is well sourced. The sites used by the references are to places that are reliable sources, but if you actually look at them, none of them support the existence of the town. For example, two of them are dead links (I just tagged them as such in the article) and others link to the general page for a site rather than a page with info about Dix. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sigh... this is still open? Street view this. — Rhododendrites talk | 03:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- There are CFDs still open from 4 years ago. Nobody is working on closing them. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- My surprise was just about people still arguing. :) — Rhododendrites talk | 12:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Guido den Broeder: Hey now, not nobody! I've closed hundreds of them--probably a dozen or more in the last few days alone. It takes time, but if you want a CfD to get to the top of the list for closure, just ping me or one of the other CfD regulars. ...nobody is working on them...sheesh...no love around here... :) Josh (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- There are CFDs still open from 4 years ago. Nobody is working on closing them. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus |  No consensus | |||
| Actions | Keep | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
Unreliable POV pushing redirect. A similar redirect has been discussed at simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/National juice of Pakistan. Sources discovered over there were depending on a popularity vote held at social media, which may not meet en:WP:RS. MathXplore (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:National juice of Pakistan | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
Flags with crosses (various categories)
[edit]I hope I've done this right - if not, apologies (I've nominated groups of categories for discussion on en.wiki, but never here before).
The following flag-related categories all seem to have peculiarly ungrammatical names. I propose
- Category:Flags with black one-cross rename to Category:Flags with one black cross
- Category:Flags with blue one-cross rename to Category:Flags with one blue cross
- Category:Flags with red one-cross rename to Category:Flags with one red cross
- Category:Flags with white one-cross rename to Category:Flags with one white cross
- Category:Flags with yellow one-cross rename to Category:Flags with one yellow cross
- Category:Blue flags with white one-cross rename to Category:Blue flags with one white cross
- Category:Red flags with white one-cross rename to Category:Red flags with one white cross
- Category:White flags with red one-cross rename to Category:White flags with one red cross
- Category:Black flags with one-cross rename to Category:Black flags with one cross
- Category:Blue flags with one-cross rename to Category:Blue flags with one cross
- Category:Green flags with one-cross rename to Category:Green flags with one cross
- Category:Purple flags with one-cross rename to Category:Purple flags with one cross
- Category:Red flags with one-cross rename to Category:Red flags with one cross
- Category:White flags with one-cross rename to Category:White flags with one cross
- Category:Yellow flags with one-cross rename to Category:Yellow flags with one cross
- Category:Flags with one outlined-cross (center-parted) rename to Category:Flags with one outlined cross (center-parted)
- Category:Flags with one outlined-cross (center-parted, tricolor) rename to Category:Flags with one outlined cross (center-parted, tricolor)
- Category:Flags with one outlined-cross (center-parted, four-color) rename to Category:Flags with one outlined cross (center-parted, four-color)
I think that's the lot... Grutness (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support most, but the last three. The incorrect use of parenthesis for non-dab info can be fixed easily:
- Other than these three, all good. Josh (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds like an improvement on my original suggestion. Thanks, Josh. Grutness (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Question @Grutness: I was about to close and implement this but realized I overlooked one issue. Category names should use digital numbers vs. words to represent quantities (e.g. "1" is better than "one")--see Category talk:Groups for some related discussion on this. Thus, would you have any issue with replacing "one" with "1" in the above list? Josh (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- None whatsoever. I'd assumed the same system as used in Wikipedia articles (words up to ten, numerals thereafter) applied here as well. Whichever is in line with Wikimedia MOS is fine by me as long as it's more grammatical than it is currently! Grutness (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- That sounds like an improvement on my original suggestion. Thanks, Josh. Grutness (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Adjusted list:
- Category:Flags with black one-cross rename to Category:Flags with 1 black cross
- Category:Flags with blue one-cross rename to Category:Flags with 1 blue cross
- Category:Flags with red one-cross rename to Category:Flags with 1 red cross
- Category:Flags with white one-cross rename to Category:Flags with 1 white cross
- Category:Flags with yellow one-cross rename to Category:Flags with 1 yellow cross
- Category:Blue flags with white one-cross rename to Category:Blue flags with 1 white cross
- Category:Red flags with white one-cross rename to Category:Red flags with 1 white cross
- Category:White flags with red one-cross rename to Category:White flags with 1 red cross
- Category:Black flags with one-cross rename to Category:Black flags with 1 cross
- Category:Blue flags with one-cross rename to Category:Blue flags with 1 cross
- Category:Green flags with one-cross rename to Category:Green flags with 1 cross
- Category:Purple flags with one-cross rename to Category:Purple flags with 1 cross
- Category:Red flags with one-cross rename to Category:Red flags with 1 cross
- Category:White flags with one-cross rename to Category:White flags with 1 cross
- Category:Yellow flags with one-cross rename to Category:Yellow flags with 1 cross
- Category:Flags with one outlined-cross (center-parted) rename to Category:Flags with 1 center-parted outlined cross
- Category:Flags with one outlined-cross (center-parted, tricolor) rename to Category:Flags with 1 tri-color center-parted outlined cross
- Category:Flags with one outlined-cross (center-parted, four-color) rename to Category:Flags with 1 four-color center-parted outlined cross
- Above list adjusted to match discussion. Josh (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions |  Rename category (per above list) | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
What is the difference with Category:Colonial wars of the Netherlands? Could the latter become a subcategory of this category? I think this construction needs careful reconsideration. JopkeB (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Addition: And when Category:Dutch East Indies has Category:Dutch colonization in Asia as a parent, then subcategories do not need to have it also as a parent (that is overcategorisation, and we do not do that on Commons). --JopkeB (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Kreuz und quer and Humboldt: Could you please give a reaction, since you were the initiators of these categories? --JopkeB (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- The two categories refer to different aspects of Dutch colonialism (amd both are appropriately classified as subcategories of Category:Colonialism of the Netherlands). While there is overlap in the categories, that's just coincidence -- not all Dutch colonial wars took place in Asia (e.g.,Category:Kieft's War). If you want to create a new category "Colonial wars of the Netherlands in Asia" so that you can categorize it under Category:Dutch colonization in Asia, of course you're welcome to do so.
- As far as Category:Dutch East Indies, that name is used for that geographical area beyond its time as a Dutch colony. So my intention is for historical events during the period of Dutch colonization to be clearly set apart from events that took place in the non-Dutch era. (A comparable situation would be Category:United States being listed under Category:British colonization of the Americas; Category:American Revolution, despite being a majorly significant aspect of Britihs colonization, would be hidden many subcategories deep.) However, if you would like to create new category(ies) that better reflect that relationship, I have zero problem with that. -- Kreuz und quer (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Kreuz und quer, this clarifies the differences to me. I'll wait another two weeks to see whether there are more opinions and then I'll close this discussion. I agree with you to seperate events that took place in different eras. And no, on this moment I have no intention to create new subcategories for this subject. --JopkeB (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | None: both categories should stay, colonial wars of the Netherlands were not only in Asia | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
I incorrectly named the category when making it and it didn't match the category specified in wikidata. My mistake. Would've been easier to fix it on the wikidata end but I wasn't sure if I'd get it correct. --Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawn, user renamed the category by themselves. -- CptViraj (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Refers to one of many “mother and child” sculptiures. Category name ought to contain location, e.g. “Plastik Mutter und Kind (Ottakring)” Zenwort (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- I moved it. It will take a few days till the bots update the files/links. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999: redirecting specific Category:Plastik Mutter und Kind to general Category:Sculptures of mothers with children and creating a replacement for the specific category with Category:Plastik Mutter und Kind (Ottakring) causes all occurrences of Category:Plastik Mutter und Kind to point to the wrong target and no occurrence to the right one. See [3], [4], [5] best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
situation is resolved. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Contains one image, and subject is not notable, so unlikely to contain more Jadine (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's recorded in a list of notable subjects .. so how do you get to the opposite conclusion? Enhancing999 (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per @Enhancing999 Estopedist1 (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
kept.--RZuo (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Category:Geology of Crater Lake redirects here, but that redirect is of more conventional form and should be the actual category name here. A look at the subcategories here shows that, for example, "Volcanism of Crater Lake" is better than "Crater Lake Volcanism." Jsayre64 (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- to be renamed. Solution per @Jsayre64 Estopedist1 (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Redirect reversed. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
no entries Mateus2019 (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Danke Mateus2019, dass Du mich darauf aufmerksam gemacht hast. Ein Teil der Bilder von der FotoTour ist jetzt hochgeladen, noch etwas pauschal, eine bessere Beschreibung und korrekte Kategorisierung hole ich nach. Grüße --Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 05:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
No further action required Category is filled in the meantime. GeorgHH • talk 13:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Renaming to “… (historical entrance)”: The entrance via the subway under the Western (Spanish) tracks _was_ the _only_ public access to the station. Now, as the building is being converted into a hotel and all tracks around it are gone, this new term fits the situation best. Hamlet 570 de (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest a compromise: "west historical entrance". -angerdan (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Category deleted, after the files have been moved to Category:Estación de Canfranc (historical entrance) GeorgHH • talk 13:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Die Kategorie kann gelöscht werden, sie wurde von mir umbenannt Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 14:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Category redirect to Category:Publikationen des Münchner Stadtmuseums. GeorgHH • talk 17:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Request moving to "Antony Blinken" as the DOS website, his social media account and many news articles are using Antony rather than Tony A1Cafel (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose, according to the CommonName policy. Compare the Category:Bill Clinton tree, which is not the William Clinton category, as well as his (Clinton's) article in Wikipedia – and countless other examples.
Blinken unsurprisingly uses his formal name at the Department of State website but Clinton, too, sometimes uses his formal name such as in the William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum, but that is not his commonly used name.
Blinken is commonly known in Washington DC as Tony, and appears in a variety of major American media as such. Examples: Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC – as well as commonly in broadcasts.
The standard procedure of providing a redirect from Category:Antony Blinken has already cleared up this issue. O'Dea (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with O'Dea for reasons given above. Earlier in his career, he was referred to as "Tony" as well as at school. --Ooligan (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment Unlike Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and other US politicians. "Antony" is more commonly referred to Mr. Blinken rather than "Tony", with google trend (globally) as reference. Even for the United States, google trend still indicated that Antony is more common than Tony. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Info User:SecretName101 moved the category to "Anthony Blinken" on 6 December 2022. I have told him that this category is under Cfd and should not be moved until the discussion finished. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- You may move back. Apologies. Error in the spelling of name (careless) and unaware of a CFD. SecretName101 (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- I support moving the article for the record. It is both his formal and common name. Both are well-used, but he has come to use Antony since becoming SOS. SecretName101 (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- You may move back. Apologies. Error in the spelling of name (careless) and unaware of a CFD. SecretName101 (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Support Reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to him as "Antony Blinken." [6], [7], [8], [9]. A Google News search for "Antony Blinken" in English yields "about 1,690,000 results" while one for "Tony Blinken" yields "about 15,000 results". --R'n'B (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support His name is Antony. It should match his the name of his own Wikipedia article. Tony is just a nickname. And the page was moved to the title of Antony. So is a discussion really necessary anymore three months after the December move? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- The page was moved to the misspelled title Category:Anthony Blinken. —R'n'B (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. But regardless, the page should be Antony Blinken. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- I fixed the misspelling. The page can always be moved back to Category:Tony Blinken if it's the outcome of the CfD. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. But regardless, the page should be Antony Blinken. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Support If we look at file descriptions, "Antony Blinken" is overwhelmingly used over "Tony Blinken". Searching for "Antony Blinken" returns 10k+ results when searching for "Tony Blinken" only returns 224 results. Note that the searches ignore category names. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- discussion mentioned at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=829772980#Is_there_a_standard_way_to_ask_for_the_closing_of_a_discussion,_or_to_publicize_a_discussion? (permalink) by Cryptic-waveform. - Jmabel ! talk 06:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- My own experience is that "Antony" is more used than "Tony", and Cryptic-waveform's Google results tend to fit that. His official page goes for the over-formal "Antony J. Blinken", which I've never heard any news source use. Googling "blinken site:npr.org" (no quotes) shows they are consistent with "Antony" when they use his first name. New York Times apparently credits him as "Antony J. Blinken" when he writes for them and variously as "Blinken", "Tony Blinken", "Antony Blinken" and "Antony J. Blinken" in other contexts. The BBC's topic page on him is "Antony Blinken"; Googling on "blinken site:bbc.co.uk" (no quotes) shows mainly "Antony Blinken", occasionally just "Blinken". ""tony blinken" site:bbc.co.uk" shows 50 results, so they do occasionally use that, but it's 50 vs. 3600 for ""antony blinken" site:bbc.co.uk". So, while he may in the past have been better known as "Tony", I think at this point I'd lean toward "Antony". - Jmabel ! talk 06:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Spideog and Ooligan: your opinions to the contrary are from quite a while back (indeed, long enough that Spideog is a new account name since then). Do you still stand by those as being appropriate, given what seems to me to be a trend? - Jmabel ! talk 06:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Summary of the opinions so far:
- Support A1Cafel, SecretName101, R'n'B, WikiCleanerMan, Cryptic-waveform (myself), Jmabel (weak support?)
- Oppose Spideog, Ooligan
I've added the CfD banner to around ~200 more categories with "Tony Blinken" in the title. I suggest waiting another week for new opinions and request closure of the discussion on December 19. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the wider CfD notice @Cryptic-waveform.
- Google "Ngram" shows "Tony" as far more common usage. "Antony" and "Anthony" spellings are far lower in usage versus "Tony."
- Here: [10] --Ooligan (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Ooligan: but that appears to be through 2019. What I said above is that it appears that there was a strong shift around the time he became Secretary of State (2021). - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel, I Support the consensus. His high profile status on the world stage has popularized his formal name. Thank you for reviving this discussion and the helping facilitate the resolution. -- Ooligan (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel, I
- @Ooligan: but that appears to be through 2019. What I said above is that it appears that there was a strong shift around the time he became Secretary of State (2021). - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Cryptic-waveform just moved the category out of process to Category:Antony Blinken. While I agree that is where it should end up, I absolutely do not endorse an out-of-process move like this during a CfD, especially one that has had quite a bit of activity in recent days. This is how edit wars start. - Jmabel ! talk 06:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- I just fixed the misspelling Anthony to Antony. Please see my comment above where I announce the change and specifically say that the category can still be moved to Tony Blinken. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Cryptic-waveform just moved the category out of process to Category:Antony Blinken. While I agree that is where it should end up, I absolutely do not endorse an out-of-process move like this during a CfD, especially one that has had quite a bit of activity in recent days. This is how edit wars start. - Jmabel ! talk 06:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support In my experience, this man's name is Anthony Blinken. Krok6kola (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Conclusion: Consensus to use "Antony Blinken" and keep current categoryy names using "Tony Blinken" as redirects. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
suggest moving the parent and child categories from Category:Murugan to Category:Kartikeya in line with English wikipedia Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- see Category talk:Murugan for discussion. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
No consensus to rename the category to Kartikeya. Venkat TL in the linked talk page shows a strong argument for the current name. Kartikeya can still be mentioned as an alternative name used in North India. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)