Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2016/03
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive March 2016
Not a museum, just an exhibition center which have just closed definitively. This cat will ever be empty. Mel22 (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Rehman. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Category to delete : I have recreated it with a plural name (passive radiators) Asmoth (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Rehman. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
sorry, category to delete (replaced by Ruf at the Motorshow Geneva 2016) Asmoth (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. Asmoth, for obvious cases like this when there is no real need for discussion, please feel free to simply add {{Bad name}} to the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Diese Kategorie ist eine Dublette zu Category:Kapelle Hülchrath (Blankenheim, Ahr) udn letztlich eine Fehlanlage auf Grund Falschreibung. Sie kann daher gelöscht werden. Benutzer:HOPflaume (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I've made a mistake in creating this user category. Please delete! Kopiersperre (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedily deleted, author request. Für so einfache Fälle geht auch {{Speedy}}. --rimshottalk 19:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The "Roman Catholic Diocese of Lead, South Dakota" does not exist : Lead belongs to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rapid City. Baronnet (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Per en:Ancient Diocese of Lead this diocese existed until 1930 when it whas renamed to en:Roman Catholic Diocese of Rapid City. Today it is a titular see. Therefore it makes sense to keep a category redirect. --Achim (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept and redirected to Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Rapid City. --Achim (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
0993383392 1.47.167.67 20:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Reverted, nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Not a museum, just an exhibition center without any collection (exhibition with only copies). This cat will always be empty. Mel22 (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete That seems reasonable. If they develop a collection in the future, the category can always be recreated. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty. --Achim (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category: Farm-Fresh Web Icons, vote delete. ↔ User: Perhelion 15:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Also affected:
- Category:FatCow Web Icons (already redirected)
- Category:Farm-Fresh flag which might be changed to plural Category:Farm-Fresh flag icons and its sub
- Category:Farm-Fresh flag with ID to Category:Farm-Fresh flag icons with ID as well
- --Achim (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Moved the bunch from Category:Farm-Fresh Web Icons to Category:Farm-Fresh web icons and redirected the others there. --Achim (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Fully duplicate of Category: Farm-Fresh Web Icons, additional vote delete of all duplicate files (search of 1745). ↔ User: Perhelion 15:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, you don't take time to read do you? Even the description says that the images are part of an updated set, with at least 2500 new icons in the mix. At the absolute most these categories can be merged. CFCF (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, why you don't read before the right category? Why you don't stripe the redundant files before? Which tool you use? ↔ User: Perhelion 15:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Cause I'm not perfect… Arguably the category I used is more correct as it is what they are called on the page… Big deal, its an easy fix… CFCF (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ok yes me too, it's not a big matter. But the source called the set "Farm-Fresh Web Icons" ↔ User: Perhelion 16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Cause I'm not perfect… Arguably the category I used is more correct as it is what they are called on the page… Big deal, its an easy fix… CFCF (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, why you don't read before the right category? Why you don't stripe the redundant files before? Which tool you use? ↔ User: Perhelion 15:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe this DR can be closed. I give this ("easy fix") to a bot request. ↔ User: Perhelion 01:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Empty category redirected to Category:Farm-Fresh web icons. --Achim (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Empty category Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I moved the one file in this category to the pre-existing Category:Lake Hazar. Consequently, this duplicate category named in French can be deleted per COM:LP. Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. A duplicate category, and the the original matches with en:Lake Hazar on English wikipedia. There might be a case for Hazar Gölü, but there's no special reason to have it in French. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I hope that Wikidata will eventually be the foundation for complete internationalization of this stuff. I also hope that we can have a true category intersection capabiity, so that a user can, for example, search for "maps of crater lakes in Japan" in any language. Rupert Clayton (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
There is another "Ana Miranda", a Brazilian writer, categorized as Category:Ana Miranda (Brazilian writer). Is it possible to move this one to Category:Ana Miranda (politician) and make this one (Category:Ana Miranda) a redirect to both, I mean, a "desambiguation-category", pointing to the politician and the writer, in order the user can chose the right one? Yanguas (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Better not. Ana Miranda de Lage is also a notable politician. The right thing to do is to write their complete names, like Ana Miranda de Lage, Ana Miranda Paz etc. --E4024 (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Whatever the new categories are called, it would be possible to turn Category:Ana Miranda into a disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest to rename to Category:Ana Miranda Paz. Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- The best option is the disambiguation page, in order to prevent creation of two categories for the same person. Yanguas (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest to rename to Category:Ana Miranda Paz. Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Whatever the new categories are called, it would be possible to turn Category:Ana Miranda into a disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Closed: since no one of the two women has a undisputed relevance over the other one, both categories are being disambiguated by profession and the simple name becomes a disambiguation page. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 00:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Seems to bee dupe of Category:Lord Mayors of Nottingham. Achim (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Lord Mayors of Nottingham leaving a redirect; handed Category:Mayor of Monmouth over to CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Empty category, conains only one unused template (which shouldn't be here). jdx Re: 18:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty, seems to be unused for years. --Achim (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Vrelo Zoupan (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I realize we do this for some rivers, but isn't it usually for famous rivers like Category:Nile and Category:Danube? Most, though not all, of the rivers in Category:Rivers of Serbia are suffixed by either river, (River), or reka. Given that there are at least six places called en:Vrelo, it seems to me to disambiguate it somehow. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then merge them into Category:Vrelo (river).--Zoupan (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Support Category:Vrelo (river). --Achim (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then merge them into Category:Vrelo (river).--Zoupan (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Vrelo (river). Category:Vrelo can be turned into a disambiguation page later, if necessary. I can't believe we had three different categories with slight name variations all for the same river. Yeeesh! - Themightyquill (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "Flanchis" and these are not crosses, but rather saltires. Kiltpin (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - There is no such thing, right, explain these: de:Flanchis, [1] and [2]. Works of fiction? Cycn (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Works of foreign languages, which should have nothing to do with Commons.There is a convention on Commons that, as far as Heraldry is concerned, category titles will be in the English language. I did not make the convention, but seeing there is a convention, I think that it is reasonable, that we should all stick to it. Otherwise chaos and anarchy will reign. In English we have a perfectly good expression for what we are seeing - saltires couped. These should come under the category Saltires and not under Crosses. Kiltpin (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Kiltpin, could you please give a link to "There is a convention on Commons...", thank you. --Achim (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- This argument has been had many times and the simple answer is that there can only be one language in use. [[3]] (please see "Uso de las categorías"). It is unfortunately in Spanish, but I am sure that you will be able to translate. Kiltpin (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Or here [[4]] Kiltpin (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Fine. 1) Policies didn't come down from heaven onto us but are made by humans for to be used by humans. And they should be changed if it's necessary. 2) Some topics have their own languages, imagine on top of a musical composition were written "walking" instead of "andante", ridiculous. And in heraldics the use of French language is quite normal and usual. 3) So we have also to ask: what would be better for the users, usability and convenience or strict application of some rules? Which words would be used when searching? Each rule of a policy pursues an objective, that should be kept in mind. --Achim (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- The link I gave you, Achim, is Wikimedia Commons Policy. If you feel so strongly about it, you should raise it with them, but I would advise reading the Archives first to see how and why they came to that policy.
- I do not truly understand. Are you really advocating that every field, every division of a field, every ordinary, every sub-ordinary, every charge, every attitude of every charge, should all have a category in every language - for usability and convenience? Because that is what it would mean. If a minor bit of information was added in one category, it would have to be added in every other category as well - in all 100+ possible languages. Are you willing to take that task on (if it was approved)? I know that I would not.
- Where an ordinary or a charge is unique to one national heraldic tradition, it is only right and proper that it should be called by its name in its own language. But that is most definitely not the case here. What you are calling a flanchis, we are calling a saltire couped. They have been used extensively throughout English speaking heraldry.
- There is an English term for it and it should be used. Kiltpin (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Fine. 1) Policies didn't come down from heaven onto us but are made by humans for to be used by humans. And they should be changed if it's necessary. 2) Some topics have their own languages, imagine on top of a musical composition were written "walking" instead of "andante", ridiculous. And in heraldics the use of French language is quite normal and usual. 3) So we have also to ask: what would be better for the users, usability and convenience or strict application of some rules? Which words would be used when searching? Each rule of a policy pursues an objective, that should be kept in mind. --Achim (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Kiltpin, could you please give a link to "There is a convention on Commons...", thank you. --Achim (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Works of foreign languages, which should have nothing to do with Commons.There is a convention on Commons that, as far as Heraldry is concerned, category titles will be in the English language. I did not make the convention, but seeing there is a convention, I think that it is reasonable, that we should all stick to it. Otherwise chaos and anarchy will reign. In English we have a perfectly good expression for what we are seeing - saltires couped. These should come under the category Saltires and not under Crosses. Kiltpin (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe someone else will merge Category:Flanchis in heraldry and Category:Saltires in heraldry (why does their content look different?). I hope that one day these endless discussions English vs other language or even Serbian vs Albanian naming (hundreds of samples) will be finally closed that way that a cat will have no name but an ID only. And all pseudo-names will be aliases pointing to that ID. Great, no more category redirects as well... --Achim (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Kiltpin, am I right if I assume that you suggest renaming Category:Flanchis in heraldry to Category:Saltires couped in heraldry? No problem, makes no difference whether A redirects to B or vice versa, two names one target. --Achim (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes,Achim, I can agree with that whole-heartedly Kiltpin (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Saltires couped in heraldry via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:Romani people, same with sub-categories. Zoupan (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Moved Category:Roma people to Category:Romani people and Category:Maps of the Roma people to Category:Maps of the Romani people. --Achim (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete empty category? Another Believer (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I came across some files uploaded for the 2016 event that were categorized with pictures OF the event, so created a separate category. Operating under the assumption that people probably uploaded images during 2014 and 2015, too, I created those categories at the same time but didn't get around to looking for the files. So while it would be ideal to look for the files and add them, I don't actually have any objection to deleting these until which time as we can confirm there actually are files to add (it's possible there aren't). That said, if this is deleted Category:Files uploaded during ArtAndFeminism 2015 should probably be deleted as well. — Rhododendrites talk | 20:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedy keep; Category has now been populated. In the future, please nominate an empty category for speedy deletion. Riley Huntley (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Contains 13 files now. --Achim (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Files by CAPTAIN RAJU. Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Both of them are tagged {{User category}}, so there is nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept. --Achim (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Category is empy, all files have been deleted by coyright violation Dinosaur918 (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- There might be photos depicting the artist. If so the cat should be created again. --Achim (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this advances our educational missing at all. Imzadi 1979 → 01:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Catégorie vide / Category empty. Sammyday (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
m.E. gleiche Kategorie wie "Walter Flemming" - eine kann gelöscht werden. Derbrauni (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Bitte die Kategorie "Walter Flemming" löschen !--Bybbisch94 (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Info: de:wp disambigs the name. --Achim (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Merged both of them into Category:Walter Flemming (artist) leaving redirects. --Achim (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete because empty? Another Believer (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept and tagged {{CatDevelop}}. --Achim (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete because empty? Another Believer (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please keep! We will have the images uploaded in the next week or so. Aap1890 (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept and tagged {{CatDevelop}}. --Achim (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
65не3уапнргощ09шога7гн6ке53мирт 87 91.226.252.90 05:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Invalid nomination. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Moved from Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Grote Sluis, Hoorn:
- The Category:Grote Sluis (Hoorn) already exists. The files in this category should be in Category:Keersluis, Hoorn. Dqfn13 (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Achim (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed, moved content to Category:Kleine Oostsluis. --Achim (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirected empty Category:Grote Sluis, Hoorn to Category:Grote Sluis (Hoorn). --Achim (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Empty category Damian Vo (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Damian Vo: You removed at least one file from this category without leaving an explanation. Perhaps you could provide a better explanation for why the category should be deleted than the fact that it's (now) empty? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's the only file from this category. I've added the file to another appropriate category. Damian Vo (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- So you are suggesting this category should be merged into the broader Category:Kylie Minogue in 2015? That seems reasonable. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's my point. Sorry for my bad English :) Damian Vo (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty. --Achim (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
por razoes Jilson Manuel (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- que deve ser feito? --Achim (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept, no answer. --Achim (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Cat to be deleted after moving 1 image one level up. Related page has been deleted on it:wp. Achim (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted after having moved up its image. --Achim (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Category to delete. Building was paper mill, not manor. Pictures moved Ciacho5 (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Deletd: Empty. --Achim (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I suggest to rename this Category into: Images from the United States National Library of Medicine.
Most photographs are not by this Library, but by other sources. We use the same logic also in a main Category:Images from libraries Jwh (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Done keeping a redirect. --Achim (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Empty category also judging by the wording its potentially here for the purpose of promotion. Druddigon (talk | contributions) 17:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty, obviously advertising/promotional purposes. --Achim (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Franco Romualdi 79.13.194.110 19:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
due to typo, the category should have been Category:N748UW (aircraft), not Category:N748UW. I just created Category:N748UW (aircraft) with the typo fixed, but want to delete this extra empty category. Category:N748UW (aircraft) PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
All "Mc Keezy K" articles have been wiped (repeatedly) on EN, All images here have been deleted so there's no use for this category either. --–Davey2010Talk 21:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Nominated for speedy deletion: Empty category. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I can't quite figure out the purpose of this category. It should either be explained or deleted. Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Of course the content doesn't show inscriptions, therefore IMO
- Moved content to other categories. --Achim (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. --Achim (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Natural history (deutsch: Naturgeschichte) is a scientific field encompassing biology and some other sciences. Therefore a book called "Natural history of animals" is simply a book about zoology, it is neither a book about the history of zoology, nor one about archäology or the evolution of animals. --Kersti (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry the purpose of all these types of Category listings or amalgamations was because the main Category was quite full. I didn't do it because of name definitions but to consolidate the page so it was not so messy. You can find this consolidation on many Books Categories and Catalogs Categories. Perhaps I put it in the wrong main Category but it was for consolidation only. So if it is just a matter of the name then just delete the Natural History books link/ WayneRay (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
A category of this name simply is not useful, as tha name actually has the same meaning as the name of the main category. And I am not angry, I simply have have some time today, because my telephon des not ring all the time - usually I sort pictures while talking to other people on the telephone and while talking I can't write - and therefore diskuss all the categories today, which looked funny to me in the last month.
I think I will sort the categories biogeographical, beginning with by country categories. --Kersti (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- HI, I looked at this Cat and it was empty so maybe I forgot to delete it in the first place?? What do you mean biogeographical? I was given some template coding from UserButko and they are for his Category Books to be categorized by country. The template puts the book subcategory in both Books by country by year and Books by year so for example you would put 1845 books from Germany and they would show up in both places. This only seems to work for books by year and not like the one we are discussing. I will put Category:History - Zoology books categories up for speedy deletion as it is empty. Thanks, WayneRay (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I emptied it after your last answer, as it soundet as if it is OK for you. Kersti (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Cat sorting on main pages
I did as you suggested and put the groups of Sub Categories on the main pages of each topic using the | in the source coding. I did this on Category:Botany books Category:Entomology books Category:Zoology books Category:Natural history books Category:Biographies and will try and find ones I did 6-8 months ago. Some, as you suggest should be renamed WayneRay (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I just redid 50 book related Categories I had worked on this year and added the | that you suggested WayneRay (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- DELETE is my vote for this empty Cat. I don't know why I created it if I didn't use it? WayneRay (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleting. Thanks for your help with these Kersti Nebelsiek. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Zoology or animal biology is the branch of biology that relates to the animal kingdom, including the structure, embryology, evolution, classification, habits, and distribution of all animals, both living and extinct, and how they interact with their ecosystems.
So what is the word "animal" in the name of this Category for? --Kersti (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is for all the sub categories beginning with the word Animal. Didn't you look at it? I could try different wording. Thanks WayneRay (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I guessed this. Than this is a category which isn't useful as it contains exactly the categories which schould be in the main category. --Kersti (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- True but my thinking waqs that it was to clean up the huge amount of Cat titles and to make the main page smaller. I can put them all back if people don't mind searching and searching for titlesWayneRay (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Category does not conform with the basic principles of Commons categorization. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
To be disambiguated (similar to en:Brian Doherty) as it isn't appropriate that the (in my opinion) least notable person "gets" the cat name. Achim (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't disagree in principle, thought it's questionable if Category:Brian Doherty (journalist) really needs to exist since it only holds one image. Unless I missed them, the other Brian Dohertys don't have images on commons. So your disambig page will only disambiguate between one legitimate category and one probably illegitimate category. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, I deleted Category:Brian Doherty (drummer) for being empty. There is a page about him on en:wp but its soundtracks are fair use. Should we keep Category:Brian Doherty as it is and set a {{Catseealso}} to the journalist on top of the page? --Achim (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say, yes, that at very least. I'm not sure if I should have described this existing category as "legitimate" earlier. By my reading, the Brian Doherty pictured in the photos in this category is not one of the Dohertys listed on the en dab page. He has an eponymous category because there are so many photos of him on commons, not because he's notable in any way. Perhaps he is friends with David Shankbone, who took all the photos? I don't know. He could probably just be cropped out of most of these photos. Anyway, some people think a personal category should be made to collect existing photos. Some people only think it should be made for notable people. Personally, I'm undecided. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Put a {{Cat see also}} on top, can't be bothered to do more now... --Achim (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept having added a catseealso. --Achim (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:World Heritage Sites ErickAgain 09:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but we should have had a redirect from Category:UNESCO World Heritage Sites. I'm rather surprised we didn't already. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- a redirect is a good idea
BUT you have to be specific, in my opinion, UNESCO is UNESCO in my opinion
World Heritage Sites by why, this is why i like the UNESCO< but nobody talks to anyone, so if you delete it, since i am sure you will, now i can code it with the Category:World Heritage Sites bla bla bla - David Adam Kess (talk) 10am Quito time 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'll tag Category:World Heritage Sites for further input. I'm fine with being specific, David Adam Kess, but I don't know of any other lists of World Heritage Sites aside from UNESCO's. I imagine this is why english wikipedia has their article at en:World Heritage Site. The only argument I could see for a move would be to suggest that "UNESCO World Heritage Site" is more common usage than just "World Heritage Site". That may be the case, I don't know. UNESCO doesn't seem to stress its name in the official branding. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
this sounds official "UNESCO World Heritage Site" for the days after britanica encyclopedia
Category:UNESCO_World_Heritage_Sites this i think should be kept, in my opinion CHEERS !! - David Adam Kess (talk) 26 . March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:UNESCO World Heritage Sites has been created on 20 March 2016 and therefore has to be treated as a duplicate of Category:World Heritage Sites (created in 2006). Category:UNESCO World Heritage Sites now contains 3 categories only which are already kept in subcats of Category:World Heritage Sites. Category:UNESCO World Heritage Site (singular) had been created in 2011 intentionally as a redirect to Category:World Heritage Sites. So Category:UNESCO World Heritage Sites has also to be redirected to Category:World Heritage Sites. The author of Category:UNESCO World Heritage Sites, David Adam Kess, should start a new CfD request if he wants Category:World Heritage Sites to be renamed.--Achim (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirected Category:UNESCO World Heritage Sites to Category:World Heritage Sites. --Achim (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
empty category MB298 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @MB298: Maybe you didn't know, but empty pages, including categories, can be nominated for a simpler deletion process by putting
{{empty page}}on them. I have done that on this category. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Category has been deleted so there's no need for further discussion. If photos of Gail Shibley is uploaded, the category can be recreated without a problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Made category as a holding spot for photos before putting in correct categories Elisfkc (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Empty category and deletion requested by creator. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Content can be found at File:Père-Lachaise_-_Division_85_-_Senninger_01.jpg，no use now. Stang 07:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The nomination is a little confusing, but the point is that the category above was misspelled. It will be deleted in favour of the correctly spelled Category:Grave of Senninger (Père-Lachaise, division 85). - Themightyquill (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Should be category:Roger Joseph Boscovich as per Roger Joseph Boscovich. Zoupan (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- en:Ruđer Bošković has been renamed to en:Roger Joseph Boscovich 3 years ago. If that discussion (see en:Talk:Roger Joseph Boscovich#Requested move) had taken place here on Commons the request would have been refused due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, but now we're here, are you opposing it?--Zoupan (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Zoupan, I moved the cat even if there has been absolutely no need to. For the future: I won't perform any cat moves whose requests are only based on spelling consistency with en:wp. May someone else do so. --Achim (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, but now we're here, are you opposing it?--Zoupan (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Roger Joseph Boscovich as a special service for Zoupan. --Achim (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
These are Mon, they are not crests. Mon have nothing to do with heraldry, so why are we using an heraldic term? The crest is a very specific part of a complete coat of arms and a mon is not part of it. This category and all the subcategories needs to be re-titled. Kiltpin (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Kiltpin, what do you suggest? Category:Mon of Japan or just Category:Mon? --Achim (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Both would do, Achim. I don't know (because it is not my subject), whether mon are used anywhere else apart from Japan. If they are not, then Category:Mon of Japan is a bit redundant (rather like a round circle). Kiltpin (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Kiltpin, I haven't a clue about mon, maybe Category:Family mon or are mon always things related to families? --Achim (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Both would do, Achim. I don't know (because it is not my subject), whether mon are used anywhere else apart from Japan. If they are not, then Category:Mon of Japan is a bit redundant (rather like a round circle). Kiltpin (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Kiltpin: According to en:Mon (emblem): "Mon, also monshō, mondokoro, and kamon, are Japanese emblems used to decorate and identify an individual or family. While mon is an encompassing term that may refer to any such device, kamon and mondokoro refer specifically to emblems used to identify a family." So maybe Category:Mon (emblem) is the way to go? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can agree with that. Kiltpin (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can agree with that. Kiltpin (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Done. --Achim (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The plural of cherry blossom is cherry blossoms - not with an apostrophy! This category needs to be re-named. Kiltpin (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Kiltpin: You're definitely right about the apostrophe. We shouldn't have an translation in the name anyway. Renaming to either Category:Sakura mon, Category:Crests with cherry blossoms, or Category:Mon with cherry blossoms ? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, only just saw this. I think "Category:Mon with cherry blossoms", because they have nothing to do with crests. Kiltpin (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, only just saw this. I think "Category:Mon with cherry blossoms", because they have nothing to do with crests. Kiltpin (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Done. --Achim (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
For renaming to "Payatas Dumpsite", current category name is too long Ianlopez1115 (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. --Achim (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Better Category:Breads in paintings see Commons:Categories#Category names: plural form Oursana (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, further explained: There are things which are countable (cherries, nuts), which are not (milk, honey) and which are both (beer / beers, bread / breads), where in that case singular should be preferred. "I'm eating some breads"? --Achim (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wasn't aware of that, thank you, Themightyquill. --Achim (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are Category:Bread sculptures and Category:Sculptures of bread respectively Category:Food sculptures and Category:Sculptures of food which are not dupes of each other but are a bit messy. I guess it was originally intended to distinguish between depicting and made of or something like that. --Achim (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hah! Funny, I wouldn't have thought of that, but it makes sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK. So I was bold and moved Category:Breads in art to Category:Bread in art. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- And I tidied the Bread sculptures / Sculptures of bread too. Feel free to revert/add etc. thanks -- Deadstar (msg) 13:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Deadstar. I think we're probably okay to close this since there is clearly no consensus to move. Thankfully no one has tried to put Category:Bread as a sub-category of Category:Bread-shaped food, because I don't know how we'd resolve that one. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I also think we're good for closing this. Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Deadstar. I think we're probably okay to close this since there is clearly no consensus to move. Thankfully no one has tried to put Category:Bread as a sub-category of Category:Bread-shaped food, because I don't know how we'd resolve that one. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept. Bedankt! --Achim (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Unneeded category - Most of the vehicles in the category have been identified (and the ones that are unknown are listed under "Buses in the United Kingdom of unknown manufacturer (bodywork)" etc etc so I'm not really seeing the need for this specific category, Whilst it's true on some images you obviously can't see the registration plate the vehicles have still been identified and unless the vehicles are preserved the images are never put in "registration" categories,
Also the template above states "This category contains unidentified, unclassified, unknown or mislabelled media. We would value your expertise to identify these media and find their rightful places in the appropriate category structure. Thank you very much. - As I said they've all been identified to specific categories ....,
(As there's over 500+ files I've not removed any images from the category yet in case anyone here disagreed with the deletion so all have been left at the moment), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ah I've just noticed Category:Buses in the United Kingdom by year of registration.... Well as a bus-image-category sorter I've never put any images in said category and I'd imagine millions of other sorters haven't either, If there are any identifiable images here they could easily be added without needing to be dumped in a category where it won't ever be seen again, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Quick Update - I've now removed the images from the category and have CSD-tagged it under G6 - I planned to wait until the category's deleted however there's categories here since October that haven't been deleted so it seems stupid to wait forever until something's finally done with this and as no one's objected in the 3 weeks It's been here I'm closing this and csd'ing it, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Seems like a useless category; poorly named as well. Category:YouTube suffices. Riley Huntley (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am fine with this being kept, but I believe these categories should be renamed. They may be standardized with each other, but it seems incorrect. Riley Huntley (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think this category has a purpose distinct from Category:Youtube, but the category name could be much clearer. How about Category:Commons YouTube resources (like Category:Commons image resources) ? The same could apply to Flickr, Panoramio and the others. Bidgee? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
No opposition. Moving to Category:Commons YouTube resources and equivalents. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Scope too broad: no reason to combine these specific types of directors into one category. There are individual categories for film directors and theatre directors -- in fact, they're subcategories of this one -- and those more-specific categories should be directly under Category:Directors instead of this. If a person directs in both areas, they can go into both subcategories. If we don't know which they are, they can go under Category:Directors. Auntof6 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment Film director and theater director are pretty similar positions, and not infrequently the groups overlap. Parent Category:Directors contains people with jobs very different from this, such as directors of zoos. So while I don't know whether this particular category should exist or not, we may want to reconsider categorization in this area more broadly. - Jmabel ! talk 22:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe. If so, then wouldn't we include television directors here as well, and even opera directors? They all have similarities, but also differences. If we do include multiple types in one category, it should be named with the conjunction "and" instead of "or". --Auntof6 (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- The categorization should by structured primarily by essence, not by structure of English language. When English language have not a term for any concept, it should be not a reason to omit such a concept. When various languages (and various Wikipedias) have different structure of concepts, Commons should be comptatible with all of them. And the fact ist that many languages have a word "Regisseur" which have not an English equivalent. We want not to "combine two specific types of directors" but to "have a specific cateogory for regisseurs", not mixed with not-regisseur directors (of business companies, choirs etc.).
- Television films are also films, opera is a theatre genre. However, the English word "director" is too broad to stand for the meaning of "Regisseur". The current name of this category seems to be more accurate. --ŠJů (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC) However, you are right that this category can be merged with the parent category, if we exclude non-regisseur subcategories from it. E.g., museum directors or zoo directors can be hardly counted among regisseurs. --ŠJů (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- As regards the conjunction, "and" means that all included regisseurs are active in both genres, while "or" expresses that every included person is active in at least one of the enumerated genres. --ŠJů (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: What about Category:Directors (performing arts) ? It might not be perfect, but it's closer, and it could fit into both Category:Directors and Category:Performing arts. Themightyquill (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- We'd also need to take care of some redirects. I just found Category:Directors from the United States, which redirects (unappropriately, IMO) to Category:Film directors from the United States. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
No opposition to my compromise suggestion in over two months. Moving to Category:Directors (performing arts) and deleting Category:Film or theatre directors. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
What is correct for these kind of categories?
- "Technische Universität Berlin" ("TU Berlin" for short) is the proper noun of the (german) University (in German) so it is Category:Alumni of Technische Universität Berlin?
- or is it Category:Alumni of the Technical University of Berlin? ("Technical University of Berlin" and "Berlin Institute of Technology" are unofficial names)
- or is Category:Alumni of the Technische Universität Berlin totally ok?
This question also refers to Category:People of TU XXX, Category:Alumni of TU XXX, Category:Faculty of TU XXX and Category:Buildings of TU XXX of all the other "Technische Universitäten" in Category:Technical universities in Germany.
examples:
- Category:Buildings of the Technical University Ilmenau
- Category:Faculty of Technische Universität Dresden vs. Category:Alumni of the Technische Universität Dresden
- Category:Buildings associated with the Darmstadt University of Technology and Category:People associated with the Darmstadt University of Technology
- Category:Alumni of the RWTH Aachen vs. Category:Faculty of RWTH Aachen
- Category:Buildings of TU Clausthal
- Category:Braunschweig University of Technology faculty
- Category:Technische Universität Berlin faculty
@Huntster: [5] --Anika (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- These double-language categories are tricky. There's no perfect solution. But I guess since we're using Technische Universität Berlin because it's the formal name, I'd go with your first suggestion: Category:Alumni of Technische Universität Berlin (i.e. no "the"). I'm not sure that means we should move/rename existing categories, for such a small issue though. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- some days ago, there was someone going through alumni/faculty/people-categories of universities and colleges, performing moves like Category:George Washington University School of Business alumni to Category:Alumni of George Washington University School of Business (and will do so with others as well; As long as there are moves, I'd be glad to have them with proper names at the end) --Anika (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Alumni added to CDC, Faculty already done by NeverDoING, thanks! --Achim (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- some days ago, there was someone going through alumni/faculty/people-categories of universities and colleges, performing moves like Category:George Washington University School of Business alumni to Category:Alumni of George Washington University School of Business (and will do so with others as well; As long as there are moves, I'd be glad to have them with proper names at the end) --Anika (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- These double-language categories are tricky. There's no perfect solution. But I guess since we're using Technische Universität Berlin because it's the formal name, I'd go with your first suggestion: Category:Alumni of Technische Universität Berlin (i.e. no "the"). I'm not sure that means we should move/rename existing categories, for such a small issue though. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going ahead and archiving this. Things have been moved to "X of Technische Universität X" categories for standardisation. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Poems by language as far as I can tell. Obviously merge, but I don't know which direction is better. If we merge to Category:Poetry by language, we could consider getting rid of Category:Poems altogether. Themightyquill (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Redirected Category:Poems to Category:Poetry. Redirected Category:Poetry by language to Category:Poems by language. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
This category does not fit into a general "Architecture of (city in Texas)" scheme. It appears to have been created only to hold "Category:Buildings in Amarillo, Texas", which, with this category, was placed in the category "Amarillo" (see separate CFD). As it only seems to create an extra step for users seeking images of buildings in Amarillo, I'd suggest that it be deleted. Ammodramus (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure to have understood. "Buildings" doesn't cover all the architectures of a given place (i.e. fountains, theme parks, while being "architectures" are not strictly meaning "buildings"). Anyway I don't want to engage in a religion war on this term, if there's something that fits better I am open to it. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then let's change "Buildings in Amarillo, Texas" to "Buildings and structures in Amarillo, Texas", and get rid of "Architecture of Amarillo". The "Architecture" category only forces seekers of Amarillo-building photos to go through one more category; and as someone who's currently working with a very slow Internet connection, I can testify that this is more than a minor inconvenience. Ammodramus (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Or create a structures category if/when it's needed and make the buildings cat a subcat of that. Buildings and structures have separate categories in so many places that it's messy to categorize combined ones. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then let's change "Buildings in Amarillo, Texas" to "Buildings and structures in Amarillo, Texas", and get rid of "Architecture of Amarillo". The "Architecture" category only forces seekers of Amarillo-building photos to go through one more category; and as someone who's currently working with a very slow Internet connection, I can testify that this is more than a minor inconvenience. Ammodramus (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept. "Architecture" is anyway a mother cat of "Buildings" and is consistent with the main category scheme of architecture of a given country. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat)
This category was changed from "Amarillo, Texas" to "Amarillo" in 2014, with the edit summary "no ambiguity". I'd like to suggest that the old name, including the state's name, be restored.
First, while we may currentlly know of no other communities called "Amarillo", that doesn't mean there aren't any: we might later learn of an unincorporated community in the southwestern US, or a small village in a Spanish-speaking country. Second, "Amarillo" might prove to have other meanings beside the Texas city: the surname of a person, say, or the name of a corporation. Third, the simple "Amarillo" might cause some difficulty for Commons users whose primary language is Spanish, and who expect to find it a repository for yellow things. Fourth, our usual practice with U.S. cities is to categorize them as "(city, state)", even when the name is unique, e.g. Category:Bird City, Kansas.
Restoring "Texas" costs nothing, and does away with these potential difficulties. Ammodramus (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
PS As a matter of fact, even "Bird City, Texas", indeed, is problematic because disambiguation must be used when necessary, not as lifestyle as is it customary for U.S. toponyms. Is a bad habit that must end.
- Support. I am in favor of always including a qualifier with names of cities, towns, etc. On Wikipedia, if someone is looking for, say, Paris, Texas, but ends up at the article on Paris, France, they will quickly figure out that it's the wrong one when they read the article. Here, it can be difficult or impossible to tell that you're at the wrong place just by looking at the images. Besides that, I've seen many cases where someone wanted to categorize something with a name that wasn't the primary meaning of something, saw the category for the primary meaning, and figured that must be it. (An example if this is Hyde Park. That one was fixed by qualifying the name of the category for the one in London and turning the unqualified one into a dab page.) Automated categorization is prone to this same kind of error. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Looking at the contents of the category, I find five images that appear to demonstrate that my third point, regarding Spanish-speaking users, is more than hypothetical. These images—a yellow mimosa flower, a pink and yellow columbine, a yellow-and-black T-shirt, a bee in a yellow flower, and a close-up of fibers in a yellowish cloth—all appear to have been uploaded and categorized by Spanish-speaking contributors, and none appears to have any connection with the 14th-largest city in Texas. — Ammodramus (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Addendum. In view of the fact that "Amarillo" appears to cause confusion for Hispanophones, it would probably be wise to delete the category altogether rather than convert it to a redirect. Ammodramus (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Addendum. In view of the fact that "Amarillo" appears to cause confusion for Hispanophones, it would probably be wise to delete the category altogether rather than convert it to a redirect. Ammodramus (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support. SERGIO's argument is not persuasive to me. Amarillo is neither a sufficiently large, nor a particularly prominent city to be known by its name without Texas as a qualifier. It cannot be likened to Rome in Italy, as the two cities are not in the same league. It is nowhere close. We also have to remember that this collection of media is not simply for insiders from Amarillo, but people in general and the more specific it is, the more helpful it is. The category never should have been changed to begin with. "Category:Amarillo" should be eliminated all together. Farragutful (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to Amarillo, Texas as per consensus. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: it's just a normal pub in an italian town, why do we have to categorize it amongst churches, buildings...? The files can be used in other contexts. Carlomartini86 (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- In principle, there's nothing wrong with a specific category for a normal pub in an Italian town if we have pictures of the pub. But neither the pub's interior or exterior are really pictures in either of the two photos. I'd say the photo descriptions should be changed, they should be categorized based on their content, and this category should be deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Two images moved to more appropriate category based on image content. Deleting now-empty category. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The word "admin" in the category is not always true, since also LicenseReviewers can review files. Should perhaps be renamed to something like "trusted user reviewed" or soemthing. Josve05a (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe "Images from external sources with reviewed licenses" is better, as when a license is reviewed it is implicit that it was done by an administrator or by an image reviewer. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right, but move 64000+ files therefore? Hm. --Achim (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- All that will be needed is a change in the template and a purge... Josve05a (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Right, categorising via templates doesn't work well for many months, maybe it works, but I suspect a complete purge or touch run will be necessary which would need 100+ hours at 10/minute. --Achim (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- All that will be needed is a change in the template and a purge... Josve05a (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right, but move 64000+ files therefore? Hm. --Achim (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Move No matter how long it takes to update pages, sooner or later they will. If the change had been made in March, probably it would be complete. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 07:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not all files are images, therefore I'd suggest using Files from external sources with reviewed licenses. FDMS 4 09:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm fine with FDMS4's suggestion and don't oppose. --Achim (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
This category was put up for speedy deletion with the reason "cleanup". There is now a Category:Photographs by Abhisit Vejjajiva. However the photographs which used to be in this category and that were moved to the new category are not by Abhisit Vejjajiva. They were taken on behalf of Abhisit Vejjajiva, who is a politician from Thailand. As the new category name is wrong, this old one should not be deleted. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I propose a deletion of Category:Files from Abhisit Vejjajiva Flickr stream and move them to Category:Photographs taken on behalf of Abhisit Vejjajiva using User:CommonsDelinker. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Files from Abhisit Vejjajiva Flickr stream has been deleted, where do you propose the files are moved Robert Weemeyer? Riley Huntley (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know why the category was deleted although this discussion is still running. I have invited the administrator who deleted the category to join this discussion. My proposal would be to recreate the category and move everything back. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:CommonsDelinker has been getting standardization requests to replace categories ending with "Flickr stream"; if we're going to move everything, can we to a better name? Category:Photographs taken on behalf of Abhisit Vejjajiva or Category:Photographs taken by the staff of Abhisit Vejjajiva? Riley Huntley (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Allforrous; any comment on why the category should just be deleted and not moved or thoughts on the aforementioned move I proposed? Riley Huntley (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)b
- Si la categoría esta vacía debe borrarse, y si está ocupada debe mantenerse. If the category is empty to be deleted, and if it is occupied should be maintained. Allforrous 12:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Allforrous; It is currently empty, so your response does not assist us in determining where the files should be moved to. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
We should bring this discussion to an end. I see no reason.to try a new category name with "on behalf if" or "by the staff of". In Category:Flickr streams, there are lots of categories named "Files from ... Flicker stream". We should follow this standard. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Revert move and rename back to Category:Files from Abhisit Vejjajiva Flickr stream, oruse any name that isn't "Photographs by Abhisit Vejjajiva". It's quite absurd that this patently incorrect name has been left standing for over one and a half years already. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)- Also has to be merged with Category:Photographs by Peerapat Wimolrungkarat. That's also a possible target, as all photos in the Flickr stream are by him. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Photographs by Peerapat Wimolrungkarat, since all photos in the stream are by him. Robert Weemeyer and ~riley, what do you think? --Paul_012 (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, why not? -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Riley Huntley (~riley) doesn't seem to be currently active, but I think this proposal is in line with the user's other suggestions above. I'll ask if an admin can close this. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Move them to Category:Photographs taken by the staff of Abhisit Vejjajiva. — Jeff G. ツ 10:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Jeff G., the Flickr profile actually says, "Photographer attached to Mr.Abhisit Vejjajiva : Mr.Peerapat Wimolrungkarat," so I think it should be reasonable to directly credit him. This would help avoid the rather superfluous "taken by the staff of" construct, which has seen an objection above. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I have now filed a bot request to move all 19 642 files. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Photographs by Peerapat Wimolrungkarat. (Files have already been moved; closing the discussion after the fact.) --Paul_012 (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
This category is a duplicate of Category:Medalla Milagrosa (Subte de Buenos Aires) Teoamez (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- You know, you can take care of this kind of issue by either redirecting the bad category, or using the {{Bad name}} template. Either of those processes is simpler, and more likely to get quick resolution. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Too late, it's been brought up for discussion. =) Obviously a merger should happen, but it's not clear to me which direction it should go. We currently have a nonsensical combination:
- Category:Buenos Aires Metro
- Category:Línea E (Subterráneo Buenos Aires)
- Multiple stations, with either (Subterráneo Buenos Aires) or (Subte de Buenos Aires)
- Category:Línea E (Subterráneo Buenos Aires)
I see no reason why the main category should be Buenos Aires Metro, when it's official name is Subterráneo de Buenos Aires, the main category should either be "Subterráneo de Buenos Aires" or "Buenos Aires Underground." It was subject to extensive discussion at en:Talk:Buenos Aires Underground and they decided on en:Buenos Aires Underground, but I think Commons is often more accepting of foreign names (if they are official names) than English wikipedia. "Subte" seems like a common semi-official nickname for the system, like "the Tube" in London, which doesn't seem appropriate to me. Certainly, there's no reason to use "Línea" instead of "Line." And if we use the Spanish name it should obviously contain "de." Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirected. Nachdem ein Schnelllöschantrag (speedy deletion) auf die leere Kategorie gestellt wurde, habe ich eine Weiterleitung (redirect) eingerichtet. Hystrix (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
"Just because we can doesn't mean we should"...? I am not convinced this category is meaningful, useful, or interesting. And "just because we can" doesn't seem like sufficient justification for having/ retaining this category. --KDS4444 (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I believe this is due to complaints about nude images appearing in categories which would not obviously contain nudity. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Makes sense.
- Makes sense.
- KDS4444: I agree that the category is not very meaningful or interesting. It vaguely useful in that it's a way of sub-dividing the number of images in Category:Women with back tattoos and Category:Nude women with tattoos which are already fairly full (and better way to do so than potentially less relevant categories like "Women with brown hair and back tattoos" or "Women with back tattoos wearing bikinis"), and it's quite useful, as Mattbuck has suggested, at keeping numerous sexually explicit images out of Category:Women with back tattoos for those who don't want to see them. Trying to categorize the ridiculous number of nude and sexually explicit photos on Commons inevitably leads to seemingly ridiculous categories like this one, but the problem is not the categorization. =( - Themightyquill (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be to keep. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Should be renamed to Category:Entre Rios, Bahia. Josve05a (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Jonatan, why should it? Category:Municipalities in Bahia keeps 420 subcats of which 81 are named "X (Bahia)" but only 6 "X, Bahia". --Achim (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Also d:Q1806968 has a majority for "Entre Rios (Bahia)". So if the one and only reason is consistency with en:wp I say
- It has been my beliefe that we follow a similar naming structure like enwp has for geographical placenames. ("City, Country" or "Mountain, City, Country" etc.) and not use disambiguation-parabasis. (See e.g. Category:Towns and villages in North Yorkshire. I think all the "X (Bahia)" shoudl be renamed to follow the common structure. Josve05a (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Category:British zoology book categories
- Category:Deutsche - German zoology book categories
- Category:Deutsche - German entomology books categories
Please change names of all these categories as these names don't tell if these are books about animals of the country in question or if they are books which are printed in this country.
- or
- Category:Entomology books printed in Germany (the translation for "herausgegeben" would be better than "printed")
or maybe you wanted to sort by language?
There are some additional issues with these categories:
- I think that it is a bad idea to have a mix up of categories concerning the animals in question and concerning the printing and scientists. Therefore I simply would delete these categories, if printed in germany is meant. But this is a question where differend opinion are possible.
- The categories are not categorized properly. Where are the main categories for the country?
- The categories were not at the correct place in the parent category - categories for multiple books should be listet at the beginning of the category with |. |* , like this [[Category:Zoology books|.]] otherwise you can't find them between als the categories for singele books.
--Kersti (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- HI and thanks for the note and information. I didn't know about the [[Category:Zoology books|.]]. The purpose for the bulking of subcategories was to consolidate books in the German language, and others, as the Main Page was quite overloaded. As the last word indicates, all the contents in the sub category are the Categories in the main page, printed or published in Germany. I can see the confusion from a German speaker point of view btu for the English speaker, they don't have to wade through dozens and dozens of files in foreign languages. SO what do you suggest I do here? Should I just put them all back in their appropriate Main Categories? WayneRay (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I looked up the main categories and think that the word language is not nessesary, as "in German" or "in Englisch" always means that it is written in this language.
Than the names would be:
- Category:Zoology books in English - I think it doesn't matter if it is British or American English? - Main category is Category:Books in English
- Category:Zoology books in German - Category:Books in German
- Category:Entomology books in German - Main category is Category:Zoology books in German
I am not interested in these categories, but as you see others had the idea to sort books by language as well. as long as I understand what the categories are for they are OK for me. --Kersti (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Danke. I will think of a better title and let you know. but Entomology books or Zoology books or Botany books in German sounds fine by me. At the extreme I could put the really large book Cats alphabetical like Zoology A title books etc WayneRay (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Than using {{CatAZ}} is better. I added this to the larger catgories. --Kersti (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks again, wish I had talked to you when I started last year. I will apply this code where necessary. Where do I place the code you gave me. I looked and didn't see it in the edit section. WayneRay (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
In Category:Zoology books I had put it below the text and above the categories. That is exactly where it shows up in the page. --Kersti (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks. So does this mean I don't get a Barnstar this year LOL WayneRay (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've renamed these more appropriately and grouped them in Category:Books in German by topic, but I'm not sure we should keep them at all. Should we really be organizing books by "topic and language" as well as by "topic and country" ? (Combine those with Category:Books by language by country for the trifecta!) Please note that WayneRay has been blocked indefinitely, so he will obviously no longer be contributing to this discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Additionally, I think Category:British zoology book categories and Category:British botany book categories should just be deleted. They refer to neither a country nor to a language. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am not shure, how many language categories are needed. I think they are relevant in pdf an djvu files but not really if the category contains mainly pictures. Kersti (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Category:British zoology book categories, Category:British Entomology books categories is empty now. --Kersti (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, Kersti Nebelsiek. That seems reasonable to sort complete books by their language, if we're going to have "complete books" categories. As you say, though, that's rather different than one these categories are doing. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Requested categories was moved/deleted. No further action needed. GeorgHH • talk 16:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
should be a redirect to:Category:Craters on the Moon ProfessorX (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- would be fine with me, but should be discussed esp. with people who have English as mother language.Reykholt (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have no strong preference, but I note that most other categories for lunar surface features use "on" (an exception is Category:Rilles of the Moon). In either case, Moon should be capitalized. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Like Auntof6, I think grammatically, either is fine. The only other thing pointing to "of" rather than "on" is the parent category Category:Surface features of Moon. Features are of something, but because they're surface features, they're also on the Moon. That said, I'd like to suggest the following moves while it's under discussion:
- Make sure everything is on the Moon (grammar)
- Try to harmonize with "on the Moon" when possible (this might be subject to more dispute)
I'm not sure what to do with the others. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- IMHO, wording "sea on the Moon" looks like "a real watery sea, but on the Moon". And "lunar sea" is an established term for lunar lava plains; it does not invoke wrong associations with water. But "Lunar Bays" should be renamed into "Lunar bays". Stas (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
A couple of points that might be of interest:
- English Wikipedia calls the "seas" category "Maria on the Moon" (using the Latin term instead of "seas").
- The only differences between the lunar seas, lunar bays, and lunar lakes are the size, configuration, and the name (lacus vs. sinus vs. mare). They're all lava flows. English Wikipedia has these in the same category, along with marshes (palus) and bays. We could consider doing the same.
Just some thoughts. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Stas000D: Thanks for your input. I actually sort of feel the same way, but I don't have any real evidence to back it up. On that note, should Category:Lunar lakes be a sub-category of Category:Lakes or not? Same question for the others? It has the same name, but it's not the same thing. @Auntof6: Absolutely, and I'm not opposed to putting these all in one category. But do note that en:List of maria on the Moon divides by size. I don't know if these different categories are used by scientists today, or if they are just left-overs from when astronomers only had small telescopes and perhaps thought they actually did contain water. Using Mare/Maria also requires us to use latin plurals, which is kind of annoying. We also do have separate categories for Category:Seas and Category:Oceans when the actual difference between the two is pretty arbitrary. We're kind of just going based on names, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think lunar lakes should not be a subcategory of lakes, because the ones on the Moon aren't bodies of water. However, we could put a hatnote on the lakes category pointing to the lunar lakes. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Stas000D: Thanks for your input. I actually sort of feel the same way, but I don't have any real evidence to back it up. On that note, should Category:Lunar lakes be a sub-category of Category:Lakes or not? Same question for the others? It has the same name, but it's not the same thing. @Auntof6: Absolutely, and I'm not opposed to putting these all in one category. But do note that en:List of maria on the Moon divides by size. I don't know if these different categories are used by scientists today, or if they are just left-overs from when astronomers only had small telescopes and perhaps thought they actually did contain water. Using Mare/Maria also requires us to use latin plurals, which is kind of annoying. We also do have separate categories for Category:Seas and Category:Oceans when the actual difference between the two is pretty arbitrary. We're kind of just going based on names, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
And what's the conclusion for Category:Craters of the moon? Is there any conclusion? In a first step I think someone should transfer all files into Category:Craters on the Moon. In a second step maybe this category could be renamed if necessary.--ProfessorX (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- ProfessorX has redirected Craters of the moon to Craters on the Moon, since no one was opposed. I've moved Category:Surface features of Moon to Category:Surface features of the Moon and Category:Wrinkle ridges on Moon to Category:Wrinkle ridges on the Moon for grammar reasons. I'm tempted to leave discussion open on the mare/lakes categories, in hope that someone with more knowledge will come along to offer additional input, but if someone wants to close as no consensus on those proposals, that's fine with me too. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Category was moved in 2016, no further discussion since 2016. GeorgHH • talk 16:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The category needs to be divided into Category:Moesia Superior, Category:Moesia Inferior and Category:Diocese of Moesia. Zoupan (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Zoupan: Or Category:Moesia or Category:Moesia (Superior & Inferior), in order to match en:Moesia? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Zoupan and Themightyquill: current system follows en:Category:Moesia. Discussion to be closed?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorabino redirected to Category:Moesia in 2020 w/o closing discussion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The Museum is now located in the Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana and called es:Museo Nacional de Quito. The images depicting the Building of the Banco Central should be moved to Category:Antique Building of the Central Bank of Ecuador. The Category should be renamed "Museo Nacional de Quito". Marsupium (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate that something should change here, Marsupium, but I'm never sure how to handle these kinds of moves. Were the exhibits that were in the Museo del Banco Central simply moved to the new museum, or does the new museum have new exhibits? Is it fair to include pictures in a museum category of exhibits that were in a differently named museum in a different building? How else might we categorize these photos to indicate that they weren't taken in the Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana? At very least, what do you propose we do with this photo or this one? See also my nomiation at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Canada Hall at the Canadian Museum of History. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, I support the move of (most) pictures of the old building's exterior to Category:Antique Building of the Central Bank of Ecuador. Images of the new museum (like this) should definitely be in Category:Museo Nacional de Quito. My concern is for images of exhibits taken before 2010, in the old building, like this, this and even this. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- You are right! The case is trickier. I withdraw my simplistic proposal for the moment. One has to think about it more diligently. --Marsupium (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Closed stale discussion; category is now an empty redirect, left as historic name. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)