Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2022/11
Initially used as a sandbox page of an IP user. Obsolete redirect. David Xuang (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: G2: x-namespace redirect. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Tinctures (Undefined). Barbudakid (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Barbudakid: No, it is not a replacement! The Tinctures (Undefined) containes CoA-files with no or unsufficient tincture specification. The Undefined color combinations of heraldic shields contains tincture combinations which do not fit into the combinations categories.
- It is a complete other question whether this category is needed at all. -- sarang♥사랑 09:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Barbudakid: Sarang is right, I fully agree with the user's reply. – Doc Taxon • Talk • 10:31, 4. Nov 2022 (UTC)
Not done: per above. User is locked globally. --Achim55 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Should be renamed to "Scarborough & District (bus company)" and/or "Scarborough Locals" - no coach photos have been posted to category. Hullian111 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Done - moved to Category:Scarborough & District (bus company) - Looking on Flickr no coaches appear to have ever been operated by them so obvious move imho, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Used as a sandbox page of an IP user. David Xuang (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Used as a sandbox page of an IP user. David Xuang (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Used as a sandbox page of an IP user. David Xuang (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Used as a sandbox page of an IP user. David Xuang (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Used as a sandbox page of an IP user. David Xuang (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Used as a sandbox page of an IP user. David Xuang (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Used as a sandbox page of an IP user. David Xuang (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Rename to "Preserved bus in the UK (LF 8375)" - simple misinput at a late hour. Hullian111 (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Preserved bus in the UK (LF 8375). –Davey2010Talk 00:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Move to "Preserved bus in the UK (C262 GUH)". Hullian111 (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted - Category:Preserved bus in the UK (C262 GUH) already exists - Moved remaining image to that category and CSD'd this one. –Davey2010Talk 00:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted: empty category. Lymantria (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Used as a sandbox page of an IP user. David Xuang (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted by Taivo. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Used as a sandbox page of an IP user. David Xuang (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted by Taivo. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Used as a sandbox page of an IP user. David Xuang (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted by Taivo. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Used as a sandbox page of an IP user. David Xuang (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted by Taivo. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Used as a sandbox page of an IP user. David Xuang (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted by Taivo. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Category:Logos of pharmaceutical companies in United States AnVuong1222004 (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleting as empty. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Pornography 103.75.21.249 16:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Not done: nothing to do. --Achim55 (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Spelling error Corqe (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Corqe: Tagged with {{Bad name}} to get it deleted. For future reference, this kind of things usually doesn't need discussing; you can just tag as I did. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Thanks! I'm still learning my way around the brace functions in the commons. Much appreciated. -- Corqe (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I created the category by mistake. It is empty now. Please delete it Olivier (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
This is an empty category for logos from a domain that is for sale. Pennenetui3000 (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Semantic error. Subject's name is Laureen Chew not Lauren Chew. I have created a new category to better categorize these images. BriefEdits (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
The creator is indefinitely blocked. The United Nations Security Council has more than 2600 resolutions. They are multilingual, so please advise what to do with the category:
- Keep without renaming?
- Rename to :United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973?
- Delete?
Getting a consensus allows whether to add more similar categories. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- I am withdrawing this discussion and moving the category to Category:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 to be similar to Category:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 while "U.N." looks too old-fashioned.--Jusjih (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
This category was created by a en:WP:SPA in order to use WMF projects as a means for promotion for a non-notable musician. The account that created this category also uploaded several, now-deleted, pictures and a created a item in the Wikidata. Since this category is empty and was created as a means for promotion, I nominated it for SD. However, the SD was declined in the grounds that a Wikidata item exists. In the WD, the item can't be deleted apparently because of this category which is a valid sitelink which means that the item pass wikidata:WD:N. Now, we have circular notability which means that spam items and categories can't be deleted. Therefore, I ask to this category to be deleted, since it's empty and obvious spam. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: speedy deleted. --Kadı Message 07:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
fund allocated for disaster purpose 58.97.176.14 05:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Not done: That's fine, but it doesn't affect categorising. --Achim55 (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think added "subject to deletion" is necessary. Once {{NoFoP-US}} is at the category, users will review them and nominate those who may fails FOP for deletion. I'm here to request reverting Cryptic-waveform's disputed move A1Cafel (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Please see the previous conversation: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/07/Category:Cloud Gate. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Ridiculous category name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith and mind your language. The status quo before the category rename was that all images (reviewed and not reviewed) were mixed in a single category. This made it hard to identify which images needed to be reviewed for FoP. After the category redirect it's now much easier to do this review. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also please don't change the category before the discussion is over. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith and mind your language. The status quo before the category rename was that all images (reviewed and not reviewed) were mixed in a single category. This made it hard to identify which images needed to be reviewed for FoP. After the category redirect it's now much easier to do this review. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
(I created this category originally.) Since it's pretty obvious that the naming is not ideal. Replace it instead with a message on top of the category which could be something like:
This search list all files in this category which have not been discussed in a deletion request or mark as {{De minimis}}. Use it to identify which new files need to be reviewed.
I'm going to make the change, close this discussion and the other one too. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Should be Category:United Methodist Church predecessor denominations to be consistent with how we use "church" and "denomination" in category names. "church" normally means a building. Jmabel ! talk 22:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This category is not useful. There is no other content in Category:Christian denominations by successor denominational unions. This category was copied from the English Wikipedia, however Commons category are organized differently. While it may be interesting for a detailed Wikipedia article about a Protestant church to list in categories its predecessor/successor churches, this has little interest for media stored on Commons. Place Clichy 10:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- If it is deleted, then its subcats need to be "promoted" up a level. - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Adding the sub-categories to Category:Former Methodist denominations indeed makes sense. Other parents seem irrelevant or redundant. Place Clichy 21:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- If it is deleted, then its subcats need to be "promoted" up a level. - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Merge upward, in accord with what seems to be a consensus. In the event that someone later strongly disagrees, it would not be hard to reverse this. - Jmabel ! talk 01:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Can we please decide what it is: Gray or Grey? The subcategories are a mix of both with a lot of double categories for the same concept. I prefer "Grey" because it is also Grey in EN-WP. JopkeB (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I see now that the same discussion is in Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Gray, so I close this one and I refer to that one for further discussion. --JopkeB (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Same as Category:Federal Inventory of Landscapes and Natural Monuments of National Importance GeneraleAutunno (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- There is only one photo of Gabriele Kohlisch and the corresponding crop on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: Deleted per nom. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Why? Those pics are taken in 2014 Lou6977 (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- There are only 4 pictures of Franziska Bertels at Wikimedia Commons. Subcategorization by year is therefore completely unnecessary. Sandro Halank (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Keep Even four images are enough to indicate at least some utility. Josh (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- There are only 4 pictures of Franziska Bertels at Wikimedia Commons. Subcategorization by year is therefore completely unnecessary. Sandro Halank (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Sandro Halank: You have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Since some discussion is already underway on this one, probably best the others be subsumed into this one. Josh (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Delete - turns out Category:Stagecoach buses in InterConnect livery exists. Hullian111 (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Please merge to Category:Japanese style restaurants in Oregon Another Believer (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Done -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Currently contains 1 photo that is a copyvio photo (and nominated as such), so after that photo is deleted this category will be empty Mbch331 (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- It can be deleted as empty if there aren't any files but the subject has 17 WP articles so is notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Furniture Wholesalers 86.30.197.19 13:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- This nomination by an IP does not look to me like the start of a useful discussion of the category. Unless there is something substantive in a week, this should just be closed as "kept as is." - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Done Kept, no valid reason for deletion Gbawden (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary subcategorization Sandro Halank (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandro Halank: Why do you claim this category is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Also, you have created a large number of CfDs that appear to cover the same issue, so it would be better to subsume these all into a single discussion instead of discussing the same question across a dozen or more CfDs. Josh (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only a few pictures from one year on Wikimedia Commons. A subcategorization by years is completely unnecessary and contradicts the common practice. I started several individual requests, as I have unfortunately only progressively discovered the extent of the nonsense. Sandro Halank (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Kategoria zbyt ogólna. Obecnie zupełnie zbędna; wszystkie pliki przeniesione do właściwych kategorii. Seboloidus (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
No conceivable value, notability concerns Emu (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Emu: What would you do with the files in the category? -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 I would delete them. The uploader removed my RfD within hours after my nomination. --Emu (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Emu: I think you'll find that the files need to be either deleted or removed from the category before the category can be deleted. I don't have much experience with file deletion, but I would think that uploaders shouldn't remove the RfD themselves. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 Personally, I don’t care about Commons and I’ve given up to understand how the RfD process works here. But because of this category and a glitch in Wikidata’s notability guidelines, this spam item can’t be deleted there. --Emu (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Emu: I think you'll find that the files need to be either deleted or removed from the category before the category can be deleted. I don't have much experience with file deletion, but I would think that uploaders shouldn't remove the RfD themselves. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 I would delete them. The uploader removed my RfD within hours after my nomination. --Emu (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
error delete Victuallers (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Done @Victuallers: For empty categories you can nominate them for speedy deletion Gbawden (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Empty and wrong naming convention. Alan Liefting (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- Done @MAlan Liefting: For empty categories you can nominate them for speedy deletion under reason C2 Gbawden (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Data files can't be categorized, so has no use (I made the cat myself) Dajasj (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Done @Dajasj: For empty categories or cats created by mistake you can nominate them for speedy deletion Gbawden (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
This category is empty. Motacilla (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
This category is empty. Motacilla (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Done @Motacilla: For empty categories you can nominate them for speedy deletion under reason C2 Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Category got a more precise name as now two settlements exist by that name. Therefore, this one is redundant. B. Jankuloski (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Done I transformed it to a disambiguation page. --Elkost (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Closing: category was changed to disambiguation. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Unnecessary category, Category:Works by Banksy already exists. Belbury (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, because it's empty and has no apparent links to Wikipedias or Wikidata. If Category:Works by Banksy is solely for art works, then it should be named Category:Art works by Banksy, like other subcategories of Category:Art works by artist. "Works by" is more generic, since it can include work other than art. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbawden (talk • contribs) 06:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
mistake in category naming, should be Clara not Birr Smirkybec (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- DoneFor empty categories or cats created by mistake you can nominate them for speedy deletion Gbawden (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
This category should be deleted or renamed, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/09/Category:Everyday life. There is only one photo in, with a monkey. Working with monkeys is for very few people an activity of daily living. My proposal is: move this photo to proper categories and delete this category. JopkeB (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Since there was no respons within a month, I close this discussion and have implementen the proposal. --JopkeB (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Should be merged to Category:Gliese 436 b, as these refer to the same exoplanet. [[User:|SevenSpheres]] (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions |  Merge Category:GJ 436 b into Category:Gliese 436 b | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
Change name to "Stagecoach in Hull" in line with main Wikipedia page and other categorised Stagecoach ops - 'Stagecoach Kingston upon Hull' was likely dropped in the 2000 rebrand, though it could still be used as a redirect to the renamed page. Hullian111 (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Stagecoach Kingston upon Hull | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
according to M.C. Beach "Rajput Painting at Bundi and Kota", p. 15, origin of the name of the painter "Daudia" was misreading of inscription and in fact painter of this name does not exist https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry 26740/page/n25/mode/2up Nous (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions |  Speedy delete of Category:Daudia | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
Needs to move to Cicindelidae due to taxonomic updates. That should be under Caraboidea and not under Carabidae. Shyamal L. 13:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Rename Category:Cicindelinae to Category:Cicindelidae | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
Tagged "{{speedy|Anonymity}} --Jucos (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)"; nominating for discussion instead of speedy deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete of Category:Juliana da Costa José | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
from the outside it is unclear what the center of Pörtschach is and how it is separated from the surroundings. There is no clear definition of the content of this category (and consequently, of gallery Pörtschach Zentrum). Looking at the coords of parent category Category:Pörtschach am Wörther See [1] without subcats, I would expect a hole where the center of Pörtschach is, but nope, there is no distinct hole. Acc. to de:Pörtschach am Wörther See there neither is an administrative part called center. So my proposal is to resolve the center of Pörtschach stuff and merge it to parent category. Delete also gallery Pörtschach Zentrum. I wrote to the maintainer of the gallery (Talk:Pörtschach Zentrum), but no answer until now. best Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Johann Jaritz: , magst du dich dazu äußern? Sonst mische ich das einfach in die Gemeindekategorie. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hallo Herzi Pinki, es ist richtig, dass es kein amtlich definiertes ORTSZENTRUM von Pörtschach gibt. Möglicherweise ist es die beste Option, das einfach in die Gemeindekategorie zu mischen und somit "Category:Center of Poertschach" aufzulösen. Es steht Dir frei, das zu tun. L.G. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I resolved the category and moved all the files to proper subcategories of Category:Pörtschach am Wörther See. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hallo Herzi Pinki, es ist richtig, dass es kein amtlich definiertes ORTSZENTRUM von Pörtschach gibt. Möglicherweise ist es die beste Option, das einfach in die Gemeindekategorie zu mischen und somit "Category:Center of Poertschach" aufzulösen. Es steht Dir frei, das zu tun. L.G. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Category:Geograph images by place and the subcategories:
- Category:Geograph images in the City of London
- Category:Geograph images in London
- Category:Geograph images in the City of Westminster
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Croydon
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Enfield
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames
- Category:Geograph images in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Hillingdon
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Haringey
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Lewisham
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Southwark
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Redbridge
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Camden
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Waltham Forest
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Brent
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Sutton
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Barnet
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Lambeth
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Newham
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Havering
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Hounslow
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Wandsworth
- Category:Geograph images in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Merton
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Bromley
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Hackney
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Islington
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Bexley
- Category:Geograph images in the Royal Borough of Greenwich
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Harrow
- Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Ealing
- Category:Geograph images in Somerset
- Category:Geograph images in England
- Category:Geograph images in Devon
- Category:Geograph images in Cornwall
- Category:Geograph images in Dorset
- Category:Geograph images in Scotland
- Category:Geograph images in the Shetland Islands
- Category:Geograph images in the Orkney Islands
- Category:Geograph images in Dumfries and Galloway
- Category:Geograph images in the Isles of Scilly
- Category:Geograph images in the West Midlands (county)
- Category:Geograph images in Hampshire
- Category:Geograph images in the Isle of Wight
- Category:Geograph images in Wales
- Category:Geograph images in Powys
- Category:Geograph images in Carmarthenshire
- Category:Geograph images in Ceredigion
- Category:Geograph images in Conwy
- Category:Geograph images in Merthyr Tydfil
- Category:Geograph images in Gwynedd
- Category:Geograph images in Flintshire
- Category:Geograph images in Swansea
- Category:Geograph images in Anglesey
- Category:Geograph images in Cardiff
- Category:Geograph images in Caerphilly
- Category:Geograph images in Bridgend
- Category:Geograph images in Blaenau Gwent
- Category:Geograph images in Pembrokeshire
- Category:Geograph images in Newport
- Category:Geograph images in Neath Port Talbot
- Category:Geograph images in Monmouthshire
- Category:Geograph images in Denbighshire
- Category:Geograph images in Wrexham
- Category:Geograph images in Vale of Glamorgan
- Category:Geograph images in Torfaen
- Category:Geograph images in Rhondda Cynon Taf
- Category:Geograph images in Gloucestershire
- Category:Geograph images in Herefordshire
- Category:Geograph images in North Somerset
- Category:Geograph images in Bristol
- Category:Geograph images in Merseyside
- Category:Geograph images in Chester
- Category:Geograph images in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral
- Category:Geograph images in Shropshire
- Category:Geograph images in Warrington
- Category:Geograph images in Brighton and Hove
- Category:Geograph images in Kent
- Category:Geograph images in East Sussex
- Category:Geograph images in Surrey
- Category:Geograph images in West Sussex
- Category:Geograph images in Oxfordshire
- Category:Geograph images in Berkshire
- Category:Geograph images in Staffordshire
- Category:Geograph images in Nottinghamshire
- Category:Geograph images in Lancashire
- Category:Geograph images in Warwickshire
- Category:Geograph images in Worcestershire
- Category:Geograph images in West Yorkshire
- Category:Geograph images in Cheshire
- Category:Geograph images in Essex
- Category:Geograph images in Cambridgeshire
- Category:Geograph images in Derbyshire
- Category:Geograph images in Norfolk
- Category:Geograph images in Greater Manchester
- Category:Geograph images in Leicestershire
- Category:Geograph images in South Yorkshire
- Category:Geograph images in North Yorkshire
- Category:Geograph images in Wiltshire
- Category:Geograph images in Suffolk
- Category:Geograph images in York
- Category:Geograph images in Hertfordshire
- Category:Geograph images in Buckinghamshire
- Category:Geograph images in Northamptonshire
- Category:Geograph images in the East Riding of Yorkshire
- Category:Geograph images in Bury, Greater Manchester
- Category:Geograph images in Ireland
- Category:Geograph images in County Kildare
- Category:Geograph images in County Mayo
- Category:Geograph images in County Monaghan
- Category:Geograph images in County Tyrone
- Category:Geograph images in County Antrim
- Category:Geograph images in County Armagh
- Category:Geograph images in County Carlow
- Category:Geograph images in County Cavan
- Category:Geograph images in County Clare
- Category:Geograph images in County Cork
- Category:Geograph images in County Donegal
- Category:Geograph images in County Down
- Category:Geograph images in County Dublin
- Category:Geograph images in County Fermanagh
- Category:Geograph images in County Galway
- Category:Geograph images in County Kerry
- Category:Geograph images in County Kilkenny
- Category:Geograph images in County Laois
- Category:Geograph images in County Leitrim
- Category:Geograph images in County Limerick
- Category:Geograph images in County Longford
- Category:Geograph images in County Louth
- Category:Geograph images in County Meath
- Category:Geograph images in County Offaly
- Category:Geograph images in County Roscommon
- Category:Geograph images in County Sligo
- Category:Geograph images in County Tipperary
- Category:Geograph images in County Waterford
- Category:Geograph images in County Westmeath
- Category:Geograph images in County Wexford
- Category:Geograph images in County Wicklow
- Category:Geograph images in Cumbria
- Category:Geograph images in Edinburgh
- Category:Geograph images in West Lothian
- Category:Geograph images in Glasgow
- Category:Geograph images in the Outer Hebrides
- Category:Geograph images in Aberdeen
- Category:Geograph images in Dundee
- Category:Geograph images in Angus
- Category:Geograph images in Perth and Kinross
- Category:Geograph images in Fife
- Category:Geograph images in the Highland (council area)
- Category:Geograph images in the Scottish Borders
- Category:Geograph images in Stirling council area
- Category:Geograph images in Argyll and Bute
- Category:Geograph images in Moray
- Category:Geograph images in Renfrewshire
- Category:Geograph images in Aberdeenshire
- Category:Geograph images in South Lanarkshire
- Category:Geograph images in West Dunbartonshire
- Category:Geograph images in North Ayrshire
- Category:Geograph images in South Ayrshire
- Category:Geograph images in Northumberland
- Category:Geograph images in East Ayrshire
- Category:Geograph images in Midlothian
- Category:Geograph images in Inverclyde
- Category:Geograph images in East Lothian
- Category:Geograph images in East Renfrewshire
- Category:Geograph images in North Lanarkshire
- Category:Geograph images in Falkirk council area
- Category:Geograph images in Clackmannanshire
- Category:Geograph images in Tyne and Wear
- Category:Geograph images in East Dunbartonshire
- Category:Geograph images in Coleraine Borough Council
- Category:Geograph images in Northern Ireland by Council
- Category:Geograph images in Derry City Council
- Category:Geograph images in Moyle District Council
- Category:Geograph images in Limavady Borough Council
- Category:Geograph images in Ballymoney Borough Council
- Category:Geograph images in Larne Borough Council
- Category:Geograph images in Ballymena Borough Council
- Category:Geograph images in Fermanagh District Council
- Category:Geograph images in Carrickfergus Borough Council
- Category:Geograph images in Down District Council
- Category:Geograph images in North Down Borough Council
- Category:Geograph images in Belfast City Council
- Category:Geograph images in Antrim Borough Council
- Category:Geograph images in Lisburn Borough Council
- Category:Geograph images in Newry and Mourne District Council
- Category:Geograph images in Strabane District Council
- Category:Geograph images in Cookstown District Council
- Category:Geograph images in Magherafelt District Council
- Category:Geograph images in Newtownabbey Borough Council
- Category:Geograph images in Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council
- Category:Geograph images in Omagh District Council
- Category:Geograph images in Armagh District Council
- Category:Geograph images in Ards Borough Council
- Category:Geograph images in Banbridge District Council
- Category:Geograph images in Craigavon Borough Council
- Category:Geograph images in Castlereagh Borough Council
- Category:Geograph images in County Durham
- Category:Geograph images in Rutland
- Category:Geograph images in Lincolnshire
- Category:Geograph images in Bedfordshire
- Category:Geograph images of Butterburn Flow
- Category:Geograph images in County Londonderry
- Category:Geograph images in the Isle of Man
- Category:Geograph images in Inverness
- Category:Geograph images in John o' Groats
- Category:Geograph images in Thurso
- Category:Geograph images in Tain
- Category:Geograph images in Fort William, Scotland
- Category:Geograph images in Portree
- Category:Geograph images in Glencoe, Highland
- Category:Geograph images in Fort Augustus
- Category:Geograph images in Aviemore
- Category:Geograph images in Ullapool
- Category:Geograph images in Glenfinnan
- Category:Geograph images in Nairn
- Category:Geograph images in Plockton
- Category:Geograph images in Tongue, Highland
- Category:Geograph images in Torridon
- Category:Geograph images in Kyle of Lochalsh
- Category:Geograph images in Dunvegan
- Category:Geograph images in Durness
- Category:Geograph images in the Isle of Skye
- Category:Geograph images in Broadford, Isle of Skye
These categories have been created as temporary categories about 10 years ago to assist in the categorization of Geograph images, see User:Faebot/Geograph#C for more information. The categorization project is done. The user who worked on this is no longer active. The category tree is redundant and not maintained. Currently it just tricks users into creating incorrect categories that combine topic and source. Time to do the clean up. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/11/Category:Geograph images by year --Multichill (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Geograph images by place (and other listed categories) | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
Category:Geograph images by year and the subcategories:
- Category:1955 Geograph images
- Category:1956 Geograph images
- Category:1957 Geograph images
- Category:1960 Geograph images
- Category:1940 Geograph images
- Category:1958 Geograph images
- Category:1961 Geograph images
- Category:1959 Geograph images
- Category:1954 Geograph images
- Category:1962 Geograph images
- Category:1953 Geograph images
- Category:1970 Geograph images
- Category:1963 Geograph images
- Category:1971 Geograph images
- Category:1952 Geograph images
- Category:1951 Geograph images
- Category:1950 Geograph images
- Category:1964 Geograph images
- Category:1972 Geograph images
- Category:1980 Geograph images
- Category:1965 Geograph images
- Category:1973 Geograph images
- Category:1945 Geograph images
- Category:1981 Geograph images
- Category:1966 Geograph images
- Category:1974 Geograph images
- Category:1982 Geograph images
- Category:1946 Geograph images
- Category:1983 Geograph images
- Category:1967 Geograph images
- Category:1984 Geograph images
- Category:1968 Geograph images
- Category:1975 Geograph images
- Category:1941 Geograph images
- Category:1969 Geograph images
- Category:1985 Geograph images
- Category:1930 Geograph images
- Category:1942 Geograph images
- Category:1931 Geograph images
- Category:1986 Geograph images
- Category:1930s Geograph images
- Category:1940s Geograph images
- Category:1950s Geograph images
- Category:1960s Geograph images
- Category:1970s Geograph images
- Category:1943 Geograph images
- Category:1980s Geograph images
- Category:1932 Geograph images
- Category:1989 Geograph images
- Category:1988 Geograph images
- Category:1987 Geograph images
- Category:1947 Geograph images
- Category:1976 Geograph images
- Category:1977 Geograph images
- Category:1978 Geograph images
- Category:1979 Geograph images
- Category:1944 Geograph images
- Category:1933 Geograph images
- Category:1935 Geograph images
- Category:1936 Geograph images
- Category:1990s Geograph images
- Category:1990 Geograph images
- Category:1991 Geograph images
- Category:1992 Geograph images
- Category:1993 Geograph images
- Category:1994 Geograph images
- Category:1995 Geograph images
- Category:1996 Geograph images
- Category:1997 Geograph images
- Category:1998 Geograph images
- Category:1999 Geograph images
- Category:1948 Geograph images
- Category:1949 Geograph images
- Category:1937 Geograph images
- Category:1938 Geograph images
- Category:1939 Geograph images
- Category:2000s Geograph images
- Category:2000 Geograph images
- Category:2001 Geograph images
- Category:2002 Geograph images
- Category:2003 Geograph images
- Category:2004 Geograph images
- Category:2005 Geograph images
- Category:2010 Geograph images
- Category:2008 Geograph images
- Category:2011 Geograph images
- Category:2009 Geograph images
- Category:2006 Geograph images
- Category:2010s Geograph images
- Category:2007 Geograph images
- Category:2012 Geograph images
- Category:2013 Geograph images
- Category:2014 Geograph images
- Category:2015 Geograph images
- Category:2016 Geograph images
- Category:2017 Geograph images
- Category:2018 Geograph images
- Category:2020s Geograph images
- Category:2020 Geograph images
- Category:2019 Geograph images
- Category:2021 Geograph images
- Category:2022 Geograph images
These categories have been created as temporary categories about 10 years ago to assist in the categorization of Geograph images, see User:Faebot/Geograph#Project_B:_Categorizing_by_decade_and_year for more information. The categorization project is done. The user who worked on this is no longer active. The category tree is redundant and not maintained. Currently it just tricks users into creating incorrect categories that combine topic and source. Time to do the clean up. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/11/Category:Geograph images by place. --Multichill (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Geograph images by year | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
- Comment @Multichill: Leaving the implementation to you with the bot (same for the 'by location' CfD also). Josh (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
We don't make categories for sports events by continent by month and year. Auntof6 (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:September 2023 sports events in Europe | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
This is a subcat of Category:Death by hanging, but clearly much of its content is nothing of the sort. We need to work out the actual intent of this category, state it explicitly, and sort out members and parent cats accordingly. Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Have you asked User:De728631 why he or she ignored the existing {{See also cat}} when he or she added Category:Death by hanging in this edit?
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Category Definition Images Category:Hanging people Living people shown hanging in the air under at least some of their own power using their own hands, arms, legs, torso, mouth. This is the original intent. Category:Hanging animals Living animals shown hanging in the air under at least some of their own power. Suspended people Living people shown suspended under the complete power of another Suspended corpses Suspended dead people who aren't shown hanged with a noose, garrote, ligature, etc. about the neck Hanged corpses or possibly Category:Execution by hanging Suspended dead people who are shown hanged with a noose, garrote, ligature, etc. about the neck. Could be further divided into judicial versus extrajudicial hanging. -
.jpg)
_(49696684931).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
- Proposed hatnote:
This page is about living people shown hanging in the air under at least some of their own power using their own limbs, torso, or other body part. For living people shown suspended under the complete power of another, see Category:Suspended people; for suspended dead people who aren't shown hanged with a noose or other ligature about the neck, see Category:Suspended corpses; for suspended dead people who are shown hanged with a noose or other ligature about the neck, see Category:Hanged corpses.
- Proposed hatnote:
- I'd be fine with DanielPenfield's breakdown here. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- I too agree with DanielPenfield's assessment of subcategories. However, when I added it to Category:Death by hanging, I seem to remember that most images in Category:Hanging people did show people hanging from the neck for the purpose of execution. I may have overlooked the "see also" link though or else I would just have recategorised the respective images. De728631 (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like we have something like consensus here. I'd like to give it a few more days to see if anyone pipes in with something further, but if you are reading this on or after 9 November 2022 and there hasn't been any disagreement, and it hasn't been closed, feel free to ping me to close it (I'm an admin). - Jmabel ! talk 22:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I'll leave this one to you, I have no objections or additional input. Thanks! Josh (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like we have something like consensus here. I'd like to give it a few more days to see if anyone pipes in with something further, but if you are reading this on or after 9 November 2022 and there hasn't been any disagreement, and it hasn't been closed, feel free to ping me to close it (I'm an admin). - Jmabel ! talk 22:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- I too agree with DanielPenfield's assessment of subcategories. However, when I added it to Category:Death by hanging, I seem to remember that most images in Category:Hanging people did show people hanging from the neck for the purpose of execution. I may have overlooked the "see also" link though or else I would just have recategorised the respective images. De728631 (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to go largely with what User:DanielPenfield suggested, but I'm not going to split up Category:Death by hanging into "suspended corpses", etc. We didn't link this from that category. If someone else wants to sort that out, fine; it may call for a separate CfD. - Jmabel ! talk 01:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
This category covers the same topic as Category:Nicolas de Poilly II so I suggest to merge them Robby (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I agree re this proposed merge. As for name, I think the convention "Nicolas de Poilly the Younger" should be favored over the convention "Nicolas de Poilly II" as this matches the way it has been resolved at the wikipedia article ("Nicolas de Poilly the Younger"), for the the genealogy table uploaded at wikimedia, etc. Stevensaylor (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Robby: Any objection to the proposal by Stevensaylor (talk · contribs)? Josh (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- No objection to the proposal made by Stevensaylor (talk · contribs). Robby (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Robby: Any objection to the proposal by Stevensaylor (talk · contribs)? Josh (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:Nicolas de Poilly II into Category:Nicolas de Poilly the Younger | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
Consistent with similar categories, this category should be renamed Category:SVG simple text logos. One example is that of Category:SVG diagrams and Category:SVG simplified diagrams, but it can be found in all the correctly named subcategories of Category:SVG files. (Here's the technical reason: grammatically, "SVG" is an adjective modifying the subject "simple text logos". with "SVG"being the modifier "SVG" being the modifier. ) Senator2029 03:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Rename Category:Simple SVG text logos to Category:SVG simple text logos | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
Disambiguation is required as there are more than one people named "Kevin McCarthy" A1Cafel (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions |  Disambiguate Category:Kevin McCarthy | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
I created this category in redundance - there is already the category Schloss Zangberg wich relates to the same object (originally a castle, now used as monastery) Purzelbier (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:Kloster Zangberg into Category:Schloss Zangberg | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
I'm not sure what is the exact purpose of this category. From what I can tell, there are no other categories for things that are "indeterminable" (by whom?). How is this distinguishable from Category:Unidentified Orchidaceae? If we cannot determine the I presume genera or species then I think it belongs as unidentified or maybe even in the parent category. This looks like a personal determination of which images the person can or cannot determine which they can keep as a list on their personal page but it shouldn't be a category. "Indeterminable" is not a characteristic of an image or orchidaceae in general. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:Indeterminable Orchidaceae into Category:Unidentified Orchidaceae | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
What is the difference between "State coaches of the Netherlands" and Category:Royal carriages in the Netherlands? I see a lot of overlap, subcategories that are in both categories. Can these two categories be merged? JopkeB (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Simple duplicate. Upmerge to Category:Royal carriages in the Netherlands
- But really this discussion needs to look at the Category:State coaches / Category:Carriages of heads of state level as well, and their subcats. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Andy Dingley, for your reaction and thoughts.
- Yes, I agree: both categories should be merged, Category:Royal carriages in the Netherlands should stay.
- And yes, you are right: in Category:State coaches and Category:Carriages of heads of state is overlap as well.
- JopkeB (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- To show I noticed this discussion (just now). I agree the overlap is not sorted out well enough yet. Maybe put the one in the other in some way. But what about State_coaches_of_Indonesia. All images in those four series are about the time when Indonesia was still a Dutch colony. That said, the carriages belonged to (semi?-)souvereign sultanats or kingdoms in Java. Maybe the seemingly redundant cat can be used to aknowledge these historical vehicles in some way. For example as: State coaches in former Nederlands Indië? or: State coaches of the nobility of the Netherlands? They are not IN the Netherlands, and not royal Dutch like belonging to the House of Orange. "State coach" in carriage typology refers to a representative coach for nobility in function (staatsierijtuig / galarijtuig), not necessarily to states as nations. Whereas "Royal carriages" can also include leisure vehicles like dogcarts, wagonettes and horse-drawn sleighs. Also we need to acknowledge that the state coaches are located in The Hague, and the more private collection of royal carriages in Paleis Het Loo. Getting back to it later. Kind Regards. Peli (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Good points.
- Category:State coaches of Indonesia should indeed be renamed. The correct name in English for the former Dutch colony is "Dutch East Indies", see: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/04/Category:Dutch East Indies. So the category name could be Category:State coaches of the Dutch East Indies or Category:State coaches of nobility of the Dutch East Indies (I prefer the latter because that is more clear). And Category:Carriages in the Dutch East Indies should be a parent category.
- Your remarks about "staatsierijtuig" shed new light on the matter. So State coaches are only the ones for formal/representative use, and are, in the Netherlands, part of Category:Royal carriages in the Netherlands, which then should be a parent category.
- JopkeB (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Good points.
- To show I noticed this discussion (just now). I agree the overlap is not sorted out well enough yet. Maybe put the one in the other in some way. But what about State_coaches_of_Indonesia. All images in those four series are about the time when Indonesia was still a Dutch colony. That said, the carriages belonged to (semi?-)souvereign sultanats or kingdoms in Java. Maybe the seemingly redundant cat can be used to aknowledge these historical vehicles in some way. For example as: State coaches in former Nederlands Indië? or: State coaches of the nobility of the Netherlands? They are not IN the Netherlands, and not royal Dutch like belonging to the House of Orange. "State coach" in carriage typology refers to a representative coach for nobility in function (staatsierijtuig / galarijtuig), not necessarily to states as nations. Whereas "Royal carriages" can also include leisure vehicles like dogcarts, wagonettes and horse-drawn sleighs. Also we need to acknowledge that the state coaches are located in The Hague, and the more private collection of royal carriages in Paleis Het Loo. Getting back to it later. Kind Regards. Peli (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Andy Dingley, for your reaction and thoughts.
- Both categories should stay. State coaches are only the ones for formal/representative use, and are, in the Netherlands, part of Category:Royal carriages in the Netherlands, which will be a parent category. Category:Royal carriages in the Netherlands also includes files about royal carriages for non formal use. Done
- Category:State coaches of Indonesia has been kept. Pelikana made a new category Category:State coaches of nobility of the Dutch East Indies to which the subcategories and files of the first one have been moved to. Done
What is the difference between Category:Shade and Category:Shadows? In the English WP is only one article about both concepts. In what cases do you use Shade and in what cases Shadows? Can there be clear definitions which explain the difference between these two? Or can both categories be merged? JopkeB (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Proposed descriptions (from Britannica.com/dictionary/The-Difference-Between-Shade-and-Shadow):
- Shade can refer to any dark area in which sunlight or other bright light is blocked. It is about a somewhat large area of darkness, and the object blocking the light is not so important. For general situations.
- Shadow refers to the dark shape that appears on a surface when an object blocks sunlight or other light. It is about a specific area of darkness, for instance the shadow of a specific person or object.
Can I uses these definitions for the Commons categories involved? --JopkeB (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Support defining as per JopkeB Josh (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Josh! --JopkeB (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Shade and Shadows are two different things, so both categories should stay and get clear definitions (on Commons and in Wikidata), like the ones above. I also changed a photo in Wikidata.
Done --JopkeB (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Should Category:Pilotis be a parent category of Category:Buildings on piles? What is the relationship between Pilotis and Buildings on piles? JopkeB (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Pilotis are a component of a building on piles, so if anything Category:Pilotis should be under Category:Buildings on piles I would think, as I think components as sub-categories of their constructs makes more sense in general. Josh (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Josh, that makes sense. JopkeB (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Category:Pilotis should be a subcategory of Category:Buildings on piles, because pilotis are parts of a building on piles. --JopkeB (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
there are two categories for the same concept (this and Category:Tentative List for future World Heritage Sites ZandDev (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 | Category:UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List | Move to/Rename as | Category:Tentative World Heritage Sites | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:Tentative List for future World Heritage Sites | Merge into | Category:Tentative World Heritage Sites | |
 | The nameing is an issue, since as far as I can tell, none of the media we have is of the list, but instead media of the actual sites, thus the name should reflect this. The content is the same in both categories, so they should be merged. If there is an actual image of the list that I missed, then by all means we can retain the Category:Tentative List for future World Heritage Sites as its home. | |||
 | Josh (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | per proposal | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
ALthough the photos ar marked on flickr as public domain (which was confirmed by bot), the links provided in the file descriptions are clearly marked at the bottom as © Le gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick. Looking at COM:TAG Canada I do not find an exemption for state government publications and must assume these file are in fact copyrighted and ought to be deleted, Zenwort (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep First, there is File:Ukrainian aid Red Cross sign, Pearson International Airport, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (52092596878).jpg that if from a single person and not from the Government of New Brunswick.
- Second, the 3 photos are freely licensed in flickr, as are also many (all) photos of this flickr page of theGovernment of New Brunswick, as are the last photos uploaded in October 5 2022 to flickr, so this is not an accident. Also the "links provided" link to a news release, not to copies of this images. Tm (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep as it is not emtpy. If any remaining images need to be deleted, their deletion should be requested at COM:DEL. If all files in this category are properly, then we can speedy delete the category. Until then it needs to remain. Josh (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Tm and Josh. -- Ooligan (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
kept. no action needed. given that at least 200k ukrainians fled to canada https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/ukraine-measures/key-figures.html , pretty sure more files about them can be uploaded.--RZuo (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect use of the plural noun 源義信 (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, empty, unlikely redirect. --rimshottalk 16:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
there are two category pages with the same name Przelijpdahl (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Przelijpdahl: What do you suggest doing about this? What is the other category name? I see that this category is connected to a Wikidata item, although it is empty. If the other category has content, we should address the Wikidata issue before deleting this one. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 both wikidata items are referring to the same person as well (Ivete da Silveira) regardless of this tiny difference in spelling. This Senator doesn’t have a wikipedia article yet, but the correct spelling is Ivete DA Silveira. Therefore I suggest first deleting the Wikidata page that is empty (which I cannot do because I am a simple autoconfirmed extended on english wikipedia). Then we should delete the category page Category:Ivete Silveira. Thanks Przelijpdahl (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Przelijpdahl: I would suggest the following:
- Redirect the incorrect Commons page to the correct one.
- Merge (not delete) the Wikidata item for the incorrect page to the Wikidata item for the correct page.
- I'd be happy to help with either of both of those. Just ping me and let me know if you'd like help. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Przelijpdahl: I would suggest the following:
- @Auntof6 both wikidata items are referring to the same person as well (Ivete da Silveira) regardless of this tiny difference in spelling. This Senator doesn’t have a wikipedia article yet, but the correct spelling is Ivete DA Silveira. Therefore I suggest first deleting the Wikidata page that is empty (which I cannot do because I am a simple autoconfirmed extended on english wikipedia). Then we should delete the category page Category:Ivete Silveira. Thanks Przelijpdahl (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Merge Category:Ivete Silveira into Category:Ivete da Silveira: same person. Wikidata should be fixed as well, but is beyond the scope of a CfD. Josh (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Przelijpdahl and Auntof6: Any objections to moving in this direction or should it be reversed? Josh (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, since that's the name of the ptwiki article. There isn't currently anything to merge, though, unless you mean the Wikidata items. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- There may be no contents at moment of writing but one never knows what will happen by time of closure. Also, at least in my understanding of the process, merging indicates retention of a redirect (at least temporarily) vs. a straight up deletion. Josh (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- looks good to me too. Merge the Wikidata items keeping the name Ivete Da Silveira Przelijpdahl (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, since that's the name of the ptwiki article. There isn't currently anything to merge, though, unless you mean the Wikidata items. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
should be deleted (German lang. only), should be moved to Category:Naturism Mateus2019 (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Mateus2019: The files in the category would need to be removed before deleting the category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Question @Auntof6: I normally think of moving files as an inherent part of moving/merging categories...or were you thinking of something else specifically for this case? Josh (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
redirected to Category:Naturism.--RZuo (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
not English, not sure what is the goal Estopedist1 (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- i assume user:Archaeodontosaurus's intention by creating "Antonin Artaud drawings" and "Antonin Artaud photographie" was actually for cat:drawings by Antonin Artaud and cat:photographs of Antonin Artaud. please, as a long-time user, follow com:cat. RZuo (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: delete, poor category name. Images upmerged. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Category should be split. Schools and public institutions should be separate categories. Auntof6 (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your observation. I created the category this way to depict the title of a project I am working on currently. It's through the implementation of the project that we took the uploaded photos. The title of the proposal is Documenting schools and other public institution in the Kumbungu District. I want all the photos taken to be put in one category for easy measurement (number of photos used on Wikimedia projects) using the Glamorous tool.I suggest the category be allowed to stand. Thanks.Fatawu25 (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete @Auntof6 and Fatawu25: The category is currently empty, so even if it may have had use or will in the future, it does not at the moment. Josh (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted as empty. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
This makes no sense. Why should a category called "Logging in King County, Washington" have parent categories that are specific to railways & locomotives? And why, in any event, is it useful to break logging down to a county level? The latter seems to me to be inappropriate geographic splitting. Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- There is also the category Category:Logging in Pierce County, Washington.
- Logging is not necessarily a county function, but the nature of watersheds and access to transportation routes are similar to the way county boundaries are created in mountainous areas. Thus this category is accurate for limiting the geographic search for images about logging. The other option is to identify commonalities of images by companies, and activities. Not choosing to take the time to research the how these images are related, it was simpler to create a county category. Chris Light (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Why split more locally than state at all, other than where we can split by company?
- Why these particular parent categories? - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Keep @Jmabel: It appears the categorization has been cleaned up--I did not find any railroad categories when I looked at it--so I think we are just talking about sorting by county at this point. I do not think there is an arbitrary limit to how granular of a location warrants categorization 'by location'. The rationale should simply be: is there sufficient media which can be identified as being in a specific location? Looking at the King and Pierce County categories above, it seems both have more than enough images where the county is identified to warrant such categories. Thus I see no reason to delete them. Josh (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: it's been cleaned up because I cleaned it up after Chris's remarks here gave no explanation of why those should be parent categories. - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Yeah, I didn't see any issue with that. Josh (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept. I was the nominator. I'm still not in love with breaking this down to counties, but now with the inappropriate parent categories removed, that issue isn't worth fighting about. - Jmabel ! talk 05:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
What is the difference with photographs of streets without people? How can I, as just an ordinary editor, with no specific knowledge about photography, who wants to clean up this kind of categories, recognize one and the other? Do you have criteria? JopkeB (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia I read about Street photography this sentence: 'However, street photography does not need to exclusively feature people within the frame. It can also focus on traces left by humanity that say something about life.' I think that is the heart of street photography: The life of people in the streets. So in this concept street photography can show people in the streets or signs and tracks of their life in the streets. But then indeed is the second question: where are the boundaries. Because graffti is also a track of life but is a category with an own identity. And that counts for more subjects like street art, street cuilture etc...
- Pragmatically speaking it could be the best for WikiCommons to demand for the category 'Street Photography' that the photo must show people themselves in the street as an expression of their life in the city - to distinguish it in this way from street art, street culture and graffiti.FotoDutch (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Is the comment by FotoDutch above sufficient or is there further discussion required? Josh (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Josh, for joining this discussion. I think there might be some further discussion required, I need more details:
- So the definition in Commons would be: Street photography is about photos of streets showing people as an expression of their life in the city. Is that right?
- My interpretation: it is not about tourists and other visitors, but about the people who live and/or work in the city, meeting friends and neighbours, biking, walking, shopping, begging, making music (street music), relaxing in a park, reading a newspaper or a book on a street bench, scrubbing their pavement in front of their house, children who are playing outside (only on streets or also at playgrounds?), going to school, people washing their windows (and what about washing windows by a professional window washer, paviors paving a street, waste collectors, police officers directing traffic?). Is this correct? Then I think this category should have a lot of (already existing) subcategories expressing these activities. Am I right?
- JopkeB (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: At first glance, this category was confusing--was it photography of or from streets, or a specific genre of photography? It seems it is the latter, and reading the above comments, trying to boil it down, it seems like it is a genre of photography focused on depicting Category:Street culture. Do you think that would be a fair approximation? Either way, I would agree that sub-categorization by specific facets/activities would make sense, especially harmonized with the structure of Category:Street culture. Josh (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Josh, for your reaction. But for me "Street culture" is even more vague than "Street photography". In EN-WP it is a referral page, so no definition there, and not in Commons, nor Wikidata either. Its subcategories are more concrete, so I might be able to work with them, and add some more.
- What I do like to know, is whether the examples I gave, are indeed about street photography. I hope to hear that (and answers to my questions about the examples) from an expert like User:FotoDutch (who is a street photographer). JopkeB (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: I agree that a more expert opinion would certainly be useful. I'm just interested in how, if possible, to boil it down to layman terms so it can be managed without attracting misguided content based on the fact that many users are likely to misunderstand the purpose and scope. I suppose some deeper conversation is warranted, so we should probably leave this open for a bit longer. Josh (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Josh: Yes, I agree: as many categories as possible should be manageble by anyone with general knowledge (exceptions for me are plants and animal species, brands of vehicles and other subject just for experts). This also applies to this category. With a good definition/description, preferable with criteria and perhaps examples, a layman should be able to understand for what kind of photos this category is intended and is not. We indeed should wait for an expert to pass by and not rush. JopkeB (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hallo, I see myself not as a 100% street photographer of my city when I compare myself with the real street photographers in Amsterdam. Because a considerable part of my photos show streets or objects, views, nature, bridges, architecture etc.. in the city without any people. To make a clear and easy category of Street Photography, understandable for everybody I should demand practically people in the picture in the streets, parks, stations and all sort of public places in the city or town - in such a way that the picture expresses life in the streets. It is hard to exclude certain groups of people such as tourists, because they are also a living part here in the streets of Amsterdam city and in many more cities and towns in The Netherlands but also wolrdwide, I believe. As soon as people are in the street they are using this street and they express life by walking, sitting, watching, talking etc....FotoDutch (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks FotoDutch, it brings us a step forward. According to you, street photography is not only about inhabitants in city streets, but also about:
- any other kind of people
- any other kind of public places outside(?); or is it also about public places inside a building, like public libraries and town halls?
- towns
- any activity
- as long as the picture expresses life in the streets.
- Proposal for new definition valid in Commons:
- Street photography is about photos of public places outside showing people as an expression of their life in a city or town.
- Interpretation:
- it is about all kind of public places outside in cities and towns, like streets, public parks and playgrounds
- a photo shows any kind of people: inhabitants, workers, tourists, adults, children
- it is about any activity outside as an expression of life in that city/town, like meeting people, biking, walking, shopping, begging, making music (street music), relaxing in a park, reading a newspaper or a book on a street bench, scrubbing pavement, children playing outside, going to school, people washing outdoor windows (housewifes as well as professional window washers) and outdoor workers at work, like paviors, waste collectors and police officers directing traffic.
- JopkeB (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hallo Jopke, Great! I should exclude the interior public areas, to keep more connections with the 'streets'.
- Is it possible to include in the introduction of 'Street photography' the sentences in the interpretation? And then also repeat several times the words street photography in it? Then may be WikiCommons becomes finaable for people online. Now when I search for street photography pictures with the words street photography Wikipedia comes already on the first link page. But it is a pity: WikiCommons with all its beautiful photos does not appear in the first 14 link pages. So nobody will find these photos now! Probably there comes a larger introduction the chanches will grow: proposal:
- street photography is about all kind of public places in cities and towns: streets, public parks, squares, canals, bridges and playgrounds.....
- street photography shows any kind of people outdoors in the city / town: inhabitants, workers, tourists, adults, children
- street photography is about any activity as an expression of people's life in that city / town. It shows meeting people, biking, walking, shopping, begging, making music (street music), relaxing in a park, reading a newspaper or a book on a street bench, scrubbing pavement, children playing outside, going to school, people washing outdoor windows (housewifes as well as professional window washers) and outdoor workers at work, like paviors, waste collectors and police officers directing traffic.
- FotoDutch (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- I have no idea what the Commons policy is about files being findable with Google. I like and am more focussed on short descriptions, the shorter the better. Josh do you know? Otherwise I'll ask on the Village Pump. JopkeB (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: In my experience, and as far as COM:CAT and such read, Commons category names should first and foremost be in accordance with Commons policies and practices. It is always nice to be compatible with our sister projects and even third-party sites, but that should never compromise our own practices. I have never read any policy or consensus that referenced compatibility with Google in particular, or any external site. I have seen many people make arguments that we should align with English Wikipedia or Wikidata but the consensus has always been that they are fine as a reference point, but there is no obligation to follow their decisions. I completely agree (as does COM:CAT I believe) that concise, common-language category names in English with a short-and-sweet description if necessary (can be replaced by a Wikidata infobox for most categories) are what we should aim for. If you come across anything further about Google or such, let me know, I'd be interested in that discussion. Josh (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Josh, that is a clear answer: We can make short descriptions and we should not worry about findability via Google. So I stick to my proposal of 25 December (with corrections made this morning). Within 2 weeks I'll implement them if there are no objections, corrections or additions. JopkeB (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I concur. Josh (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hallo Josh and JopkeB - in my view your approach is exactly the reason that in the coming ten years almost nobody knows what WikiCommons can mean to them as a very precious image archive worldwide. And so every year it will become harder and harder for Commons to collect the necessary money for its own survival. - But despite all Happy New Year and best wishes for 2023. FotoDutch (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- @FotoDutch: If you do not agree with a Commons policy, you can discuss it at the Village pump. Describe briefly what the problem is and propose your solution. JopkeB (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hallo Josh and JopkeB - in my view your approach is exactly the reason that in the coming ten years almost nobody knows what WikiCommons can mean to them as a very precious image archive worldwide. And so every year it will become harder and harder for Commons to collect the necessary money for its own survival. - But despite all Happy New Year and best wishes for 2023. FotoDutch (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Josh, that is a clear answer: We can make short descriptions and we should not worry about findability via Google. So I stick to my proposal of 25 December (with corrections made this morning). Within 2 weeks I'll implement them if there are no objections, corrections or additions. JopkeB (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: In my experience, and as far as COM:CAT and such read, Commons category names should first and foremost be in accordance with Commons policies and practices. It is always nice to be compatible with our sister projects and even third-party sites, but that should never compromise our own practices. I have never read any policy or consensus that referenced compatibility with Google in particular, or any external site. I have seen many people make arguments that we should align with English Wikipedia or Wikidata but the consensus has always been that they are fine as a reference point, but there is no obligation to follow their decisions. I completely agree (as does COM:CAT I believe) that concise, common-language category names in English with a short-and-sweet description if necessary (can be replaced by a Wikidata infobox for most categories) are what we should aim for. If you come across anything further about Google or such, let me know, I'd be interested in that discussion. Josh (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I have no idea what the Commons policy is about files being findable with Google. I like and am more focussed on short descriptions, the shorter the better. Josh do you know? Otherwise I'll ask on the Village Pump. JopkeB (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks FotoDutch, it brings us a step forward. According to you, street photography is not only about inhabitants in city streets, but also about:
- Hallo, I see myself not as a 100% street photographer of my city when I compare myself with the real street photographers in Amsterdam. Because a considerable part of my photos show streets or objects, views, nature, bridges, architecture etc.. in the city without any people. To make a clear and easy category of Street Photography, understandable for everybody I should demand practically people in the picture in the streets, parks, stations and all sort of public places in the city or town - in such a way that the picture expresses life in the streets. It is hard to exclude certain groups of people such as tourists, because they are also a living part here in the streets of Amsterdam city and in many more cities and towns in The Netherlands but also wolrdwide, I believe. As soon as people are in the street they are using this street and they express life by walking, sitting, watching, talking etc....FotoDutch (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Josh: Yes, I agree: as many categories as possible should be manageble by anyone with general knowledge (exceptions for me are plants and animal species, brands of vehicles and other subject just for experts). This also applies to this category. With a good definition/description, preferable with criteria and perhaps examples, a layman should be able to understand for what kind of photos this category is intended and is not. We indeed should wait for an expert to pass by and not rush. JopkeB (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: I agree that a more expert opinion would certainly be useful. I'm just interested in how, if possible, to boil it down to layman terms so it can be managed without attracting misguided content based on the fact that many users are likely to misunderstand the purpose and scope. I suppose some deeper conversation is warranted, so we should probably leave this open for a bit longer. Josh (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: At first glance, this category was confusing--was it photography of or from streets, or a specific genre of photography? It seems it is the latter, and reading the above comments, trying to boil it down, it seems like it is a genre of photography focused on depicting Category:Street culture. Do you think that would be a fair approximation? Either way, I would agree that sub-categorization by specific facets/activities would make sense, especially harmonized with the structure of Category:Street culture. Josh (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Josh, for joining this discussion. I think there might be some further discussion required, I need more details:
- @JopkeB: Is the comment by FotoDutch above sufficient or is there further discussion required? Josh (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Opinion: Wikipedia should mirror real life, and therefor here the term Street photography should primary be considered and treated as a genre and not as a theme. This category should include only those images, that in real life as well are considered examples of the art of street photography: Works by professional and amateur street photographers. In short, the conditions of the photographer, and the intention of the photographer should be taken into account.
Wikipedia should not upgrade/promote any picture taken in the street as street photography. We should even considered if resembling works present here are in scope. Street photography is a form of autonomous art, and not a form of photo-journalism. Collecting autonomous art here is not our goal, only gathering samples of art. This in short is my opinion, and I hope this helps determining further direction. -- Mdd (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- As a test case I took a closer look at the first image listed in the category, the File:"Open" (31070875875).jpg. I suspected this image was only framed as "Street photography" in the state I found it an hour ago, see here. The documentation gave little actual information. The first thing I did was try to further identify the image: Where was it taken? What does it show? Who took it? And when? And with what intention?
- Back to the source at Flickr the photostream showed a second image of the same street from a slightly different angle, with a remarkable title "My town". The data of the photographer showed she was from Madison, Wisconsin, the images shows a copy of the Capitol, so the street could be identified as the street in Madison leading to it's Capitol. I collected all 384 images of this amateur photographer together in a new category, and the image in the new category of the street with another 14 images present.
- What I realized in the test case was the importance of first identifying the image before categorization. This particular image can be categorized by photographer, by place and time (not yet done) relatively exactly. The question if this particular image also classifies as street art is more difficult to answer. It depends on the photographer, its intention, and the way this image is received in real life (according to my previous comment)....!?
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&oldid=712580562){kind=link}
- As to the latest question: In this particular case the photographer has identified herself as: Mother, wife, mycology enthusiast, forager, rock hound & amateur photographer... Beauty is everywhere! (see here) She has shared her work on Flickr with the world since August 2014 (8.5 years) and received 1.3M views. At the moment there are 1.013 photos present of which 384 images are imported here. So far it is unclear how these images are further received and used in Wikipedia, see [wikipedia=1&projects[wikimedia]=1&projects[wikisource]=1&projects[wikibooks]=1&projects[wikiquote]=1&projects[wiktionary]=1&projects[wikinews]=1&projects[wikivoyage]=1&projects[wikispecies]=1&projects[mediawiki]=1&projects[wikidata]=1&projects[wikiversity]=1].
- On Flickr the one image was accepted in five different groups: The World Through My Eyes ... ; City street life ; city life ; Urban LIFE in Metropolis //// ; Madison Photography Meetup Group, which tells us a little more about the intention.
- Now to bring this test case to an end for now: The image is identified and categorized as such by (amateur)artist, by place, and by themes/objects in the picture. The question whether to classify this as street photography is yet undetermined. And also the question if this image and even the whole collection is in scope!? I hope this illustrated some more of my point of view. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mdd, for your opinion. It shows me that "street photography" is (also) about intentions of the photographer. So my conclusion is that we need an extra criterium: "considered to be examples of the art of street photography, works by professional and amateur street photographers". But now practical: how can we recognize whether a photo was intended as an example of street photography? On a photo you cannot see what the intentions of a photographer were. How do we know whether the photographer is/was a street photographer? Should we do as much research as you did for this one photo? And: can anyone call him-/herself a street photographer and is that sufficient enough to mark his/her photos as 'street photography'? JopkeB (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Intention and reception are important in all forms of contemporary art. I tend to agree with the criterium. And yes, some research is needed, especially if you just starting in a particular field. If you have researched the one example, often the results can be used for a whole bunch of images. As to your latest series of questions, the relation with street photography should be made clear in external sources in one way or another. Things get interesting for Wikimedia Commons if there are some intention, quality pictures and reception inline with the requirements here. -- Mdd (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- So the extra criterium should be:
- "Considered to be an example of the art of street photography, a work by a professional or amateur street photographer, proven by one or more external sources which confirm that the photographer is a street photographer."
- Am I right? JopkeB (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- So the extra criterium should be:
- I am wondering what you are aiming at here? Do you want to add this description on top of this category? Do you want to curate the category or the collection of street photography on Commons yourself? Do you want to set the conditions? Or do you hope by adding the description this category will curate itself? From the start it was unclear why you started this - Commons:Categories for discussion- discussion, and not a discussion on it's talk page. There are clearly several items here. If we want to resolve any of this, we might take it one item at the time.
- Personally I see no need for extra criteria, or description. I do think we could/should rethink the governance of this kind of work in the light of recent events. Hundreds or thousands of images have been promoted lately to street photography by one editor, while partly it concerned different genres, and partly it probably should have been tagged as out of scope. He seem to have imported all of his own recent works of street art, which he also presents at two or three other places, while just a selection here would be nice. In my opinion these kind of actions are de-railing normal Wikimedia operations.
- What also has come to mind here is the small group of other editors, who have uploaded large series of photo's from amateur Flickr streams, without any description such has been brought to light with my first test case, described above. These might fit here, but for what purpose? So in short, I have other concerns here. -- Mdd (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- That are a lot of questions. I'll try to answer them.
- I am aiming at:
- Clear definitions/descriptions for categories, so that casual visitors and editors know what should be in and what should not be in a category. So yes, I want to add a description on top of this category, preferably one on which there is agreement. Usually a description is sufficient, but not in this case.
- Clear criteria, because in my opinion, the vaguer the concept, the more precise the criteria should be. "Street photography" is such a vague concept for me, much vaguer than "street", "street musicians" or "passing cyclists", things anyone can see on a photo. So I think some criteria are in order here.
- Only files in a category that indeed belong in that category, and get rid of the rest (in a proper way, of coarse, moving them to other categories when that is necessary). If possible, I would indeed like to curate this category and the ones about the Netherlands myself. Because I am not an expert in this field I need clear criteria. If I am not considered to be competent enough for this job, I hope this category (and its subcategories) will be curated by experts.
- I started this discussion here, and not on it's talk page, because (1) I think here more people will participate and (2) lately another editor did not like it that I started a discussion on a talk page.
- Yes, I also saw that hundreds or thousands of images have been promoted lately to street photography. I wondered whether they were correctly considered to be part of street photography. That was one of the reasons I started this discussion, to get clarity.
- I agree that in general a selection of someone's best photographs is better and that these kind of actions are de-railing normal Commons operations. It takes a lot of time from editors (not just from you and me) to take care of overcategorization, make new subcategories, judge whether they have been well categorized, and similar actions. But on the other hand, I like a lot of these photos and think many of them are an asset to Commons.
- I am not able to judge whether they partly concern different genres. Please enlight me.
- Which ones should have been tagged as out of scope? And for what reason? I suggest you make a selection with VisualFileChange and make a deletion proposal. Please ping me then as well.
- Yes, that's an eyesore to me too: files without any proper description. They are not reusable because nobody can find them. And they stay in a category for media needing categories for ever.
- I am aiming at:
- JopkeB (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- That are a lot of questions. I'll try to answer them.
- Thanks @JopkeB: for this clarification which makes it more clear that there are a whole range of questions here, and I am glad that you acknowledge some of my addition concerns brought forward. In my opinion trying to improve the situation here is sort of a Wikiproject on it's own, and such a cooperation can only work if you bring back the whole challenge to a set of manageable separate challenges. I do have a bigger picture here, ideas for different rivers to cross etc. but this is not the place to resolve any of it. I think a better place to discuss smaller issues is on the Category talk:Street photography itself. -- Mdd (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- This discussion is about the first step: get a clear definition and criteria to be able to judge whether files are rightly included in Category:Street photography and in its subcategories. The next step would be to actually do the judging and -if necessary- move files that do not fit in. The other "range of questions here" I leave to someone else, as well as where these questions are placed. So my question for now (and this discussion) is: Do you (all) agree to the proposed definition and criteria?
- Resume:
- Definition: Street photography is about photos of public places outside, showing people as an expression of their life in a city or town, taken by a professional or amateur street photographer.
- Interpretation/critera:
- it is about all kind of public places outside in cities and towns, like streets, public parks, canals, bridges and playgrounds
- a photo shows any kind of people: inhabitants, workers, tourists, adults, children
- it is about any activity outside as an expression of life in that city/town, like meeting people, biking, walking, shopping, begging, making music (street music), relaxing in a park, reading a newspaper or a book on a street bench, scrubbing pavement, children playing outside, going to school, people washing outdoor windows (housewifes as well as professional window washers) and outdoor workers at work, like paviors, waste collectors and police officers directing traffic.
- considered to be an example of the art of street photography, a work by a professional or amateur street photographer, proven by one or more external sources which confirm that the photographer is a street photographer.
- JopkeB (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- In the Category talk:Street photography I set aside some of my other concerns. Back to your description, it might be to repressive as definition. For example there are also public places inside, where the street photographer made a picture, or half-inside for example at a rail way station. Also non-street photographers could have made stand alone and/or small series of street art photo's. Yet, your description could work as a guideline for the "core-business" of work. As such it could be mentioned in short in the main categories introduction with for example the text "For guidelines for inclusion, see here," with a link to a place on the talk page. -- Mdd (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- FotoDutch added a description in Category:Street photography without discussing it here first:
- Street photography is photography conducted for art or enquiry that features unmediated chance encounters and random incidents within public places. The street photographer can be seen as an extension of the flâneur, an observer of the streets, as Susan Sontag wrote. Framing and timing can be key aspects with the aim of some street photography being to create images at a decisive or poignant moment.
- In my opion rather vague to guide visitors and editors about what should be in and not be in this category.
- FotoDutch added a description in Category:Street photography without discussing it here first:
- In the comment of Mdd here, he nuanced the description we composed. In real life I am pro nuances. But in Commons it makes things more complex and less unambiguously. So I wonder now whether this category is a good idea at all. Lately I think a lot of Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/09/Category:Everyday life, of which the outcome was that the category was redundant and the files and subcategories were moved to more concrete categories. So perhaps this category might be redundant too (for Commons, not in real life, not for photographers) and that might be solved by moving the files and subcategories to ones like "Cycling people", "Children playing outside", "People in conversation outside" and reward the good photos with 'Quality images' (you can even make subcategories for 'Quality images'). And perhaps someone knowledgeable in this matter can make a gallery page with good examples of street photography.
- @FotoDutch and Josh: I can understand that you have dropped out this discussion, but can you please still comment on these new developments in the discussion? JopkeB (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- More just trying to keep up with it all vs. dropping out, but I need to re-read and ponder for a bit before I have something constructive to add. Josh (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is not my job. I want to be busy with photos and that people can reach them. So, don't wait for me in this matter. The only thing I can say: the description must be practically, otherwise it is useless. FotoDutch (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- More just trying to keep up with it all vs. dropping out, but I need to re-read and ponder for a bit before I have something constructive to add. Josh (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Results so far
[edit]I. Definition and criteria
Street photography is a photography genre, a form of autonomous art. It is about photos of public places, usually outside, showing people as an expression of their life in a city or town, taken by a professional or amateur street photographer.
Photos in this category should include only photos which are considered to be examples of the art of street photography, works by professional and amateur street photographers.
Interpretation/critera: a photo in this category should show:
- a public place in cities and towns, like streets, public parks, canals, bridges and playgrounds
- people: inhabitants, workers, tourists, adults, children and any other kind of people
- an activity outside as an expression of life in that city/town, like meeting people, biking, walking, shopping, begging, making music (street music), relaxing in a park, reading a newspaper or a book on a street bench, scrubbing pavement, children playing outside, going to school, people washing outdoor windows (housewifes as well as professional window washers) and outdoor workers at work, like paviors, waste collectors and police officers directing traffic.
Such a photo also should be taken by a professional or amateur street photographer, proven by one or more external sources which confirm that the photographer is a street photographer.
II. Other considerations
This category involves activities that people do in populated places. But a lot of those activities are already included in other Commons categories. Is this category therefor redundant? Examples of genuine street photography can also be included in a gallery page about this subject, made by an expert.
III. Outstanding questions
- Do you agree with the definition and criteria?
- Does this category have a right to exist on Commons?
--JopkeB (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hallo Jopke. I believe this is a very clear and practical approach. I agree! Thanks! FotoDutch (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- But this is not what I agree: ...proven by one or more external sources which confirm that the photographer is a street photographer. ... . Not necessary. And dangerous when Commons start to select photos in such way...FotoDutch (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Thanks for the hefty amount of work done so far to try and corral this one. I agree with the general concepts put forward here. I would second the concern of FotoDutch regarding specifically limiting the acceptable photographers to those gate-kept by an external source, however. I think the critieria should center on the media not the source.
- As for the question of duplication: yes, it is technically duplicative of categories for specific activities, if one is looking for just a depiction of the activity. However, I think street photography is more than just depicting an activity, but putting it into the context of the overall life of the urban environment. A picture that shows someone sweeping their front step is definitely Sweeping, but may or may not be street photography depending on the larger context of the image. Of course, likewise, a lot of street photography will not happen to show sweeping. Thus I think the duplication is only at one level and not really a complete duplication.
- So yeah, I think the criteria on the content (maybe not the source) is great, and yes, I think the category warrants retention. That's my two cents on it, thanks again for the good work! Josh (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Josh, for the compliment. Can you still point out somewhat further about what street photography is more than just depicting an activity, what is the larger context you are referring to? How can I see on a photo that it is not just about showing sweeping a front step, what makes such a photo to street photography? --JopkeB (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Agreed with these conclusions. As to your question above, I cannot provide more than an exclusively laymans' answer to that. I would just think it is any photography depicting typical activities within the context of urban life, specifically those done 'in public'. It is not a place to put the activities themselves, those have their own topical trees and each would have a branch into street photography for those depictions in the urban life context. However, I am sure that folks more expert than I can come up with something far more exacting and I don't think I added much to what I already said, my apologies. "Urban life" is certainly an inexact concept and with my lack of expertise, I probably ought to leave defining it to others more steeped in the topic. Josh (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Josh, for the compliment. Can you still point out somewhat further about what street photography is more than just depicting an activity, what is the larger context you are referring to? How can I see on a photo that it is not just about showing sweeping a front step, what makes such a photo to street photography? --JopkeB (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
General conclusions
- I. So I have stricken through the criterium that the name of a street photographer should be proven by one or more external sources which confirm that the photographer is a street photographer. The rest of the criteria are OK.
- II. This category has a right to exist on Commons and is not redundant, though a lot of activities involved in street photography are already included in other Commons categories.
--JopkeB (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed with these conclusions. Josh (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Keep + Implementation of the definition and criteria Done. Still to do: remove files from this category that do not meet the criteria + move the other files to (new or existing) subcategories. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
Correct category for new name of the settlement (Per official name change of the settlement (per offical renaming at https://www.stat.gov.mk/KlasifikaciiNomenklaturi/NTES_2019.zip)) already exists. I transferred all of the contents there. This one needs deleting, but I don't see a dedicated template for that. B. Jankuloski (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Bjankuloski06: What is the correct category name? If this is a former name, we can make it a redirect. Josh (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- The correct one is Category:Zarapinci, and it exists. I transferred everything there and intended to request deletion as this one is no longer functional. I didn't see the benefit of keeping it. B. Jankuloski (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: deleted per nom. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
As we can see in photos like this File:Antenna (23381527355).jpg not every circuit board is a printed circuit board. Sheesh, kids these days! Clearly people were using circuit boards long before printed circuit boards. They are called PRINTED circuit boards to distinguish them from other circuit boards. Sheesh! Geo Swan (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not done: no discussion here. Just be bold, change the redirect category to a regular category, and populate it. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
"Bequeaths" is a verb. Shouldn't this category be called "Bequests"? Marnanel (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Done: moved as per above. Seems non-controversial. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I have concerns about the contents of the category rather than the category itself. I believe that this warrants discussion.
Many of the elements were uploaded here or were transferred from various language Wikipedias in the "early days" when copyright issues were less carefully monitored and patrolled. Many of the images show the ©, ®, or TM symbols which make their status likely to be explicit, and likely inappropriate to hold here
Unsure how best to go about initiating a discussion other than nominating individual files, of which there are a great many, I chose to open the discussion here. While the manufacturer is a defunct corporation, the laws protecting copyright remain in place. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 07:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- ® and TM are not an issue as such: they just call for {{Trademarked}}
- These images don't appear to be of anything copyrightable. The small amount of text on the processor is typically not copyrightable, nor is the look of the functional object. Of course the content of the microprocessor, instantiated in its electronics, is copyrightable but nothing here infringes that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: Unfortunately, there is not much we can do in a CfD about files that are best deleted. COM:DEL is the right place for this, and I believe (not a big participant there so I might be wrong) you can nominate a group of files for deletion in one request if it is essentially the same issue for all of them. As for the category, if a COM:DEL is successful, it would be a good idea to add a hat note so future contributors know what to avoid when adding new files. Josh (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner I'm grateful for that information. What troubles me is that one would need, presumably, to take each and every file individually? I suppose we might apply COM:IAR and still conclude matters here?.
- @Jmabel's comment is also of interest. My apologies for the tardy reply.
- I'm not suggesting the matter is urgent, but it is important to reach a conclusion. I do not feel I am competent to reach it myself. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 10:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: I think the problem is that the folks that are really on top of licensing issues and policing files for copyright infringement are more likely to frequent places like COM:DEL and Commons:Village pump/copyright, while for me, I am very comfortable commenting on category naming and organization, but I don't swim in the licensing pool a whole lot and would not feel as comfortable implementing that here. It is a bit like a corporate contract case landing in family court or vice-versa. Not that I don't think we could figure it out, just it is a little a field of what CfD regulars usually seem to focus on here. Either way though, we definitely would need to have a concise list of which files are considered to be an issue and why. Is there a particular poster-child file that is a clear violation that you can start with? Josh (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner A particular poster child file might be any at the top level. Regarding @Jmabel's point, I am not clear on TM (etc) vs ©, but I am content to yield to their knowledge. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: I am not super familiar with chip copyright issues, but I imagine they are similar to PCBs. As a designer myself, I was surprised we have no policy and many are under the mistaken assumption that because PCBs are functional devices that their pattern of circuitry is not covered by copyright. Thus I've started a conversation about adding a policy for this. Perhaps chips as well need to have a policy made, which will make policing files in the future much more straight forward than having to raise individual discussions. Josh (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner If you would link to that new discussion here that might be useful. I suspect any closure here might easily be deferred until that discussion closes?
- I only swim in the licencing pool insofar as I propose what I see as breaches for others to decide upon, and seem to have a reasonable instinct for it. I gain more competence by seeing the outcomes, but am not at all an expert 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 10:50, 25 December 2022
- @Timtrent: I think the problem is that the folks that are really on top of licensing issues and policing files for copyright infringement are more likely to frequent places like COM:DEL and Commons:Village pump/copyright, while for me, I am very comfortable commenting on category naming and organization, but I don't swim in the licensing pool a whole lot and would not feel as comfortable implementing that here. It is a bit like a corporate contract case landing in family court or vice-versa. Not that I don't think we could figure it out, just it is a little a field of what CfD regulars usually seem to focus on here. Either way though, we definitely would need to have a concise list of which files are considered to be an issue and why. Is there a particular poster-child file that is a clear violation that you can start with? Josh (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
(UTC)
Closed no new discussion in almost 11 months. Category used, populated with subcategories. Agree that if media within the category is a copyright problem, it can be listed for deletion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This category contains a random assortment of tennis players who happened to be photographed from the side or the back. This seems like over-categorisation to me -- all the photos include shoulders and elbows as well, but no sensible person would add them to a "Female shoulders in tennis" category. Genericusername57 (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Genericusername57 Do you think the categories Female buttocks in sports, Female buttocks in beach volleyball and Female buttocks in fitness should be added to this discussion? Your comments seem to apply there too; the only exception I noticed was the file Beach Volleyball 2007 (1436878951).jpg, which is also notable for its hand gestures and bikini bottom. Even the category Female buttocks is questionable; see, for example, the file " 12 - ITALY - Motor Show Bologna 2012 - Girl and promotional models 04.jpg, where no part of the buttocks is exposed. Brianjd (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
With categories with dozens of items, it's natural to create a category tree. The goal is not to have hundreds or thousands of items in a single main category, which makes it difficult to search and view. It makes no sense to delete a single category in tree and keep the others. If already deleted, then it would make sense to delete all sports categories. Probably with the result that a number of images will be recategorized into the main topic Category:Female buttocks. Kacir (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Kacir: To clarify, when you say then it would make sense to delete all sports categories, you mean all "female buttocks in sports" categories, not "all sports categories", right? — Rhododendrites talk | 21:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Of course, I wrote within the topic "female buttocks", thanks. ;) Kacir (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Kacir I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we move images to the main category Female buttocks. But some people are suggesting that was remove images from this part of the category tree completely. So the images would not appear in Female buttocks, nor would they appear in any subcategory of Female buttocks.
- Example I happened to see recently: The file Naked child walking beach.jpg was removed from the category Girls' buttocks. The image shows the buttocks reasonably well, but they are not the focus of the image. Brianjd (talk) 1, 4:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- I do not think so, for example in most pictures in tennis the buttocks are shown in the focus of the image, even better than in a number of images categorized in main category Female buttocks, or in equal proportion. Kacir (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- The relationship between buttocks (or any other part of the anatomy) and particular sports is not really depicted by these images...instead it just incidental. Sports are not a media in which they are depicted (like 'in art' would be). Thus I believe all of these should be deleted:
- I did not see any "male buttocks in sport" categories, but if they are found they should likewise be deleted. Josh (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Josh on this. It's telling that we don't have male equivalents, or nearly all of the other body parts visible. — Rhododendrites talk | 20:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Users Brianjd, Josh and Rhodendrites : there is no relationship between tennis and buttocks. Such are not useful neither for the practice of this sport nor for increasing performance, such as strong arms are, for example. Please
- as well as parent and sister categories
- Delete Category:Female buttocks in sports
- Delete Category:Female buttocks in beach volleyball
- Delete Category:Female buttocks in fitness
- Furthermore : the fact that this category tree focuses on female buttocks but not male ones is a flagrant violation of the general principle of equal treatment. And this is just one example (among many others within this project) of the increasing contempt and humiliation to which are confronted women and especially adolescent girls who happen to find themselves in embarrassing situations. It is not fair to point this out by creating specific categories, but more than ever necessary to counteract this kind of sexist discrimination. --Bohème (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Categories DELETED per arguments above, which I agree with. Comment: Nothing wrong if individuals find athletes attractive. But these categories more than crossed the line into creeper territory, using categories for objectifying and fetishizing specific anatomical parts - IMO not something Commons should be associated with. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Per this Village Pump discussion, there seems to be some questions about the name of this category. — Ricky81682 (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
options
[edit]- category:languages by name
- sounds fine to me; since English is our default for naming categories, it may be unnecessary. — Jmabel ! talk 19:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- just like Category:Breads by name, Category:Board games by name, etc. — RZuo (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- category:languages by English name
- nearly everything in Commons is in English, so why add "English-language"? — JopkeB (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- category:languages by English-language name
- fine with me (should it be "by English-language name" or is "by English name" enough?). — JopkeB (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support. This one I like. In theory, we could have a hidden categories like Category:Languages by French-language name that holds all redirects from the French-language name to English-language name. It would help our foreign language uploaders. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- category:languages (long list)
- If "long list" will not be in the name, can it be in the description of the category that the purpose is to have all languages in this category? — JopkeB (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- category:languages (flat list)
- Like the one above but indicates that the languages are not grouped by language family or any other criterion. — Arlo James Barnes 07:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- There is already Category:Languages by family, is that not enough? I thought that the purpose of Category:Inventory of languages is to contain every individual language, to be able to find a language more easily when you do not know the language family it belongs to (last part is my interpretation). JopkeB (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@RZuo, El Grafo, Berdea, and Auntof6:
resuming
[edit]@Ricky81682, Jmabel, RZuo, El Grafo, Berdea, Auntof6, and Arlo Barnes:
- The main questions in this discussion are:
- What is this category about?
- This category should contain every individual language
- ... to be able to find a language more easily when you do not know the language family it belongs to.
- Is this a useful category?
- No doubt about it.
- Should it be renamed? What is a better name?
- Several proposals, see above.
- What is this category about?
My questions:
- Do you agree with the resume? Are the statements correct?
- If yes: Which one do we choose? I suggest to have a poll. Fill in your name next to your favorite. You may vote for only one name. The proposal with the most votes will be the winner. The poll ends at 18 January 2023 12:00 UCT.
January 2023 poll
[edit]Poll Proposal Yes No Result Languages by name RZuo (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)+2-0=+2 Languages by English name RZuo (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)+0-2=-2 eliminated Languages by English-language name Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC) RZuo (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC) +1-1=0 Languages (long list) JopkeB (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC) RZuo (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)+1-2=-1 eliminated Languages (flat list) RZuo (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)+2-0=+2
- --JopkeB (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- @RZuo, When you change the rules, at least mention the new rules: what are the SMART criteria for the winner? Are the "No" votes vetos? How many votes does a voter have on both sides? JopkeB (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- either get more people to vote.
- or the entries with the least overall votes will be eliminated by 28 Feb, and then we vote on the remainders again. repeat this process until one is selected. RZuo (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- "Languages by English name" and "Languages (long list)" are eliminated.--RZuo (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- @RZuo, When you change the rules, at least mention the new rules: what are the SMART criteria for the winner? Are the "No" votes vetos? How many votes does a voter have on both sides? JopkeB (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- --JopkeB (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think this category is a list of what categories Commons has for individual languages. We are using the English-language names for each category. I like that idea because it would be helpful to have say Tamil-language names of languages as redirect that would help foreign language users. We should be doing more redirects from various languages to whatever category we choose to use for things to make searching easier. Also I pick "English-language" rather than English because English could be everything from Indian English to British English to American English, although I do not suspect there is much difference. Otherwise, I have no idea what you are doing with a poll as I have never seen Commons use polls as a method of resolving CFDs. There are literally discussions that have been going on for years but I don't think it's proper to demand a poll resolve this within a short fixed time period. I otherwise have no objection to any of the other names, just a preference for one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed that a poll is an unusual choice for establishing consensus in the context of Commons. Regarding the -language styling, are you recommending that there also be for example a category:日本語名で見る言語 or the like that contains Japanese redirects to the categories that would be listed directly in a category:languages by English-language name? Arlo James Barnes 23:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- I would think it would be helpful but it's not relevant to the discussion at hand. I see a number of redirect for cities/countries in various languages. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed that a poll is an unusual choice for establishing consensus in the context of Commons. Regarding the -language styling, are you recommending that there also be for example a category:日本語名で見る言語 or the like that contains Japanese redirects to the categories that would be listed directly in a category:languages by English-language name? Arlo James Barnes 23:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
My conclusions
- A poll is not an unusual tool to establish a choice for a name for a category, see for instance Discussion about Soccer, Discussion about Traditional clothes and Discussion about Charcoal clamps.
- There is no clear winner of the poll. Causes: Several voters voted for more than one name, one voter added a new column without specifying rules that should accompany the new kind of poll.
- I did my best to come to an agreement about a new name, but that did not turn out well. I am out of this discussion.
--JopkeB (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
March 2023 poll
[edit]@Berdea, Arlo Barnes, Jmabel, JopkeB, and Ricky81682: please vote among the following options. votes will be counted asap after 31 march 2023.--RZuo (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Languages by name
- Support — RZuo (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support — Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support — The English-language option makes more sense if we have enough to distinguish them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Languages by English-language name
- Languages (flat list)
- Support — Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support — Arlo James Barnes 22:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I see no reason to vote for only one, when I find two options equally acceptable. - Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Languages by English-language name" is eliminated.
- @Arlo Barnes, Jmabel, and Ricky81682: do you want to hold the final round of votes, or proceed to adopt "Languages by name"? RZuo (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- @RZuo Languages by name is fine for me. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm fine with "languages by name" a long as there is a comment on the page indicating that it is to be treated as a flat list. - Jmabel ! talk 15:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a consensus to use either Languages by name or Languages (flat list). However, as Jmabel has pointed out that Languages by name can be treated as a flat list and the fact that natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical ones, the Inventory of languages category will be renamed to Languages by name with a note that it is treated as a flat list. Kudos to all who have participated in this discussion and happy uploading! --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
commons has both Category:Exercise and Category:Physical exercises. it seems other wikis only have Category:Physical exercise (Q7014497).
i suggest we merge Exercise into Physical exercises, and turn Exercise into dab since there're also for example military exercise. RZuo (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- we need some reorganisation and clarification of these cats as well:
- Category:Personal training i think this needs to be renamed to something more specific. even though it might commonly refer to "personal fitness training", the phrase itself could also be used for training in anything like acting, speaking...
- Category:Fitness training seems to be a subset of Physical exercises? for modern, gym-related kind of training?
- i was just looking for "fitness coaches", professional fitness coach (Q8563456) this kind of thing, but we dont have a cat yet?? RZuo (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Support: yes, agree. Exercise should be a disambig category, like w:en:Exercise (disambiguation). Just go ahead and reorganize it. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Support: Exercise should be a disambig category and the current files and subcategories should be moved to appropriate categories. In my opinion this discussion can be closed and the actions can be implemented. --JopkeB (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- @RZuo, P199, and JopkeB: Should I go ahead converting the category into a dab page? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, please do so. JopkeB (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Convert Category:Exercise to a dab | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC) | |||