Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2012/10
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive October 2012
Improper category: It is better to categorize such files by continent or the like instead of creating a very vague category tree without no real political basic. Please delete 88.64.118.148 16:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Basic categories are by country, possibly by continent although this overcategorisation is not really needed. Lets' not invent another scheme. --Foroa (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- The idea is to create this one as a meta-cat and add national ones as sub-cats - see Mailer-fsu. But Rome was not built on a single day ! Cheers Thib Phil (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you don't answer the basic question: makes it sense to make a military categorisation tree for an ill defined (rather cultural) entity that is not really used elsewhere in the category structures. --Foroa (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- "that is not really used elsewhere in the category structures" - ??? : see Category:Architecture of Latin America Thib Phil (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Precisely, it is very incomplete and half of it concerns Category:Central America, nothing compared to Category:South America. I feel that we cannot maintain 3 such largely overlapping category structures, except for pure cultural things. --Foroa (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- "that is not really used elsewhere in the category structures" - ??? : see Category:Architecture of Latin America Thib Phil (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you don't answer the basic question: makes it sense to make a military categorisation tree for an ill defined (rather cultural) entity that is not really used elsewhere in the category structures. --Foroa (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- The idea is to create this one as a meta-cat and add national ones as sub-cats - see Mailer-fsu. But Rome was not built on a single day ! Cheers Thib Phil (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Foroa. We should also consider to talk about Category:Latin America - at least we should think about a strict definition of the content of that category. All in all, there is no need for Category:Armored vehicles in Latin America and there is likely no need for a Category:Armored vehicles in South America or the like. Use a by country category - that makes sense. --High Contrast (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I created this category in error, using upper instead of lower case for the initial letter of Barn. As a result the category doesn't work with the "counties of" template in "Tithe barn" categories for other English counties. Therefore this category needs to be deleted. Motacilla (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
empty category, now replaced by CIL XIII 008973 Pp.paul.4 (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Sam the Record Man was a chain of approx 140 locations. These are images of the "flagship store" that had existed on Yonge Street in Toronto. Shall we rename for more precision, per new main article Sam the Record Man flagship store? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with that, as it is more precise.--Abebenjoe (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. Good suggestion, and no concerns were raised. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
move to Category:Market Hall (Charleston, South Carolina), disambiguate from Category:Market Hall (Peterborough, Ontario) Fungus Guy (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
No action, Charleston market hall had been moved to Category:City Market (Charleston, South Carolina), Pboro market moved to Category:Peterborough Market Hall. Fungus Guy (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
move to Category:Confederation Park (Ottawa), to disambiguate from Category:Confederation Park (Peterborough, Ontario) Fungus Guy (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
No action, Ottawa had been moved to Category:Confederation Park, Ottawa, pboro moved to Category:Confederation Park, Peterborough. Fungus Guy (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Error in the name: should bu DC instead of DG. A corret category already created, files have been moved. Maksim Sidorov 05:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 21:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Category title is POV. --Mindmatrix 20:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 23:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
To be deleted (tipo) Beethoven9 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
english name seems to be improper translation from french moulin à vent de Trois-Rivières, consider moving to Category:Moulin à vent de Trois-Rivières Fungus Guy (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Moulin à vent de Trois-Rivières. --rimshottalk 20:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
possible name change to Fabric (district of Timişoara) to avoid confusion with english word "fabric" or cloth Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Fabric, Timişoara. --rimshottalk 20:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
duplicate of Category:Bizarre silks, empty Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Duplicate and empty. Delete it or make category redirect. - PKM (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate. --rimshottalk 20:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Rename? English article is Company town, the comments at the top of the page use that same phrase, and I don't see any particular basis for the current name "Workers' settlements". Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would agree. Note that the category had been created under the name of "Category:Company towns", before being renamed in "Workers' settlements". --Myrabella (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any disagreement. I'll make the move. - Jmabel ! talk 03:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Aspirin is usually sold by Bayer and a proprietary name/ trademark in lots of countries. Also, the whole pharmaceutical form (e.g. pill) is referenced as "Aspirin(e)" not only the active substance, (acetylsalicylic acid).
I therefore suggest putting everything related to the Bayer product into Category:Aspirine and everything about the active substance, especially structural formulae into Category:Acetylsalicylic acid. 77.184.48.22 04:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Moving all the chemical images into a cat named for the chemical makes sense to me (with parent/child relationship to the cat about the drug formulation/product...not sure which is parent though). I don't see a need to move the drug images into a different spelling though--essentially that's just choosing a different regional variation or specific company's product for the same thing, which is no longer single-manufacturer or a proprietary-name. So I do not support that part of the proposal. DMacks (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Per suggestion, Category:Aspirine was merged into Category:Aspirin, and the chemical structure images were separated out to Category:Acetylsalicylic acid. Ed (Edgar181) 18:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
This category has been superseded so I nominate it for deletion. "Category:St Mary the Virgin Church, Chipping Norton" is more correctly named and all relevant files have been moved there. Motacilla (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please insert simply {{Bad name|St Mary the Virgin Church, Chipping Norton}} for such simple cases. --Foroa (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
'Moved to Category:St Mary the Virgin Church, Chipping Norton. --rimshottalk 20:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This is redundant to Category:Train stations of SEPTA Regional Rail. Mackensen (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Train stations of SEPTA Regional Rail. --rimshottalk 23:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
consider moving to Category:Seal Cove Smoked Herring Stands, nothing else notable occupies, making NHSC superfluous Fungus Guy (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- There are most certainly many other such stands in Canada and other countries, so Category:Seal cove smoked herring stand, Grand Manan Island would be more appropriate. --Foroa (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- A couple of issues to respond to. First, the reference to being a NHSC is not superfluous. This is a category for a specific grouping of 54 buildings, and the surrounding landscape, not necessarily all the waterfront wooden buildings in Seal Cove related to the smoked herring fishery. This is not like the case of a building that happens to be a NHSC, among other things, but rather a particularly-defined cultural landscape that only exists as a NHSC. Second, as for Foroa's comment, the category already mentions the name of the small community, so maybe extra disambiguation (Grand Manan) is unnecessary. In any event, I think that second issue is moot. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, it's not superfluous. As a cultural landscape, NHS should be included. Could we perhaps shorten it to Category:Seal Cove Smoked Herring Stands National Historic Site? Or is 'of Canada' necessary? Fungus Guy (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, you're right, we don't need the "of Canada" - that's the official name, but we typically don't name NHSC categories that way on Commons. I hadn't even noticed that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, it's not superfluous. As a cultural landscape, NHS should be included. Could we perhaps shorten it to Category:Seal Cove Smoked Herring Stands National Historic Site? Or is 'of Canada' necessary? Fungus Guy (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- A couple of issues to respond to. First, the reference to being a NHSC is not superfluous. This is a category for a specific grouping of 54 buildings, and the surrounding landscape, not necessarily all the waterfront wooden buildings in Seal Cove related to the smoked herring fishery. This is not like the case of a building that happens to be a NHSC, among other things, but rather a particularly-defined cultural landscape that only exists as a NHSC. Second, as for Foroa's comment, the category already mentions the name of the small community, so maybe extra disambiguation (Grand Manan) is unnecessary. In any event, I think that second issue is moot. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Move to Category:Seal Cove Smoked Herring Stands National Historic Site. Fungus Guy (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
move to Category:Hutchison House, Hong Kong, disambiguate from Category:Hutchison House (Peterborough) Fungus Guy (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
No Action, move already occurred. Fungus Guy (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be intended for the same purpose as the Category Victor Larco Herrera District (Trujillo, Peru) only one category should be used. ErickAgain 10:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Victor Larco Herrera District (Trujillo, Peru). --rimshottalk 23:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Empty category. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete I just forgot to mark this for a speedy delete when I had all the copyvios within it deleted. No reason to have this now. —SpacemanSpiff 03:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
architecture: this lists it as Category:Italianate architecture in Ontario, but its registry page describes it as Queen Anne Revival, with Palladian windows. are these the same? Fungus Guy (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. I don't know, not being an architecture expert, but I doubt it is the same/similar. This building does not particularly strike me as being Italianate, but I sometimes do find this architectural-style business a bit subjective. As for the CRHP, it does contains errors, so it's important not to treat it as an infallible source. Having said that, I don't see any reason why it is wrong here. I was the one who originally put this category in an Italianate architecture category, and enough time has passed that I cannot remember why or on what source I was relying. I see the CRHP refers to the Scottish-Ontario Chambers next door as being Italianate, so I might have misread it. For this sort of thing, especially where there does appear to be an error, I would just make the fix - no need to trouble yoursle with the task of initiating a category discussion (unless you anticipate some controversy). If someone objects to one's fix, and there is no way to settle the disagreement, then one can always initiate a discussion at that point. Hope that helps. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm nowhere near an architect either, and I didn't want to change info that may have been correct just because CRHP said different. Fungus Guy (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm nowhere near an architect either, and I didn't want to change info that may have been correct just because CRHP said different. Fungus Guy (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. I don't know, not being an architecture expert, but I doubt it is the same/similar. This building does not particularly strike me as being Italianate, but I sometimes do find this architectural-style business a bit subjective. As for the CRHP, it does contains errors, so it's important not to treat it as an infallible source. Having said that, I don't see any reason why it is wrong here. I was the one who originally put this category in an Italianate architecture category, and enough time has passed that I cannot remember why or on what source I was relying. I see the CRHP refers to the Scottish-Ontario Chambers next door as being Italianate, so I might have misread it. For this sort of thing, especially where there does appear to be an error, I would just make the fix - no need to trouble yoursle with the task of initiating a category discussion (unless you anticipate some controversy). If someone objects to one's fix, and there is no way to settle the disagreement, then one can always initiate a discussion at that point. Hope that helps. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Re-categorized as Category:Queen Anne architecture in Ontario and Category:Palladian architecture in Ontario Fungus Guy (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Wrong name. 石 (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I created this in error, and added this tag to other relevant files. will use a category which was already created KarinCox (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 00:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
unused, obsolete -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 00:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
empty category, and i cannot figure out what its for. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 00:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
May be deleted, error in category name (nam of artst wrongly spelled) Pimbrils (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. Correct name is Category:William Henry Margetson. --rimshottalk 16:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
It's empty, and I replaced it with another category due to a spelling error. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Minimum Interval Takeoff. --rimshottalk 00:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Wujiang District, see en:Wujiang District, Suzhou. --Makecat (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Wujiang District, Suzhou. --rimshottalk 00:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Consider moving to Category:Dominion Public Building (Toronto) to disambiguate from others, including Category:Dominion Public Building (London, Ontario), and Category:Dominion Public Building (Moncton) Fungus Guy (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, and this could become a DAB category. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Great idea, will do! Fungus Guy (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Move to Category:Dominion Public Building (Toronto), maintained page as disambiguation.
Consider moving to Category:Johnson House (Methuen), to disambiguate from Category:Johnson House (Brandon), and others. Fungus Guy (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Terrific idea. Sometimes we are in such a hurry on these things we forget there might be many of a very similar name.Botteville (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Fungus Guy (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Move to Category:Johnson House (Methuen)
perhaps move to Category:Stanley Hotel (Estes Park) to disambiguate from Category:Hotel Stanley (Vancouver) Fungus Guy (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I can't see any reason why not. - Jmabel ! talk 15:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Cool.
Move to Category:Stanley Hotel (Estes Park) Fungus Guy (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
|
In my opinion Category:Museums and galleries in Kitchener, Category:Museums and galleries in Kitchener, Ontario and Category:Museums and galleries in Waterloo, Ontario should redirect to Category:Museums and galleries in Kitchener-Waterloo. Kitchener and Waterloo are twin cities, for most practical purposes. They grew together and merged decades ago. Visitors could easily be confused which city a museum they visited was in, particularly if someone else did the driving, as there is no obvious markers that one has moved from one city to another. -- Geo Swan (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- You might be right, I've been to K-W and could not tell where the boundaries were, but then we would enter a larger discussion of merging Category:Kitchener, Ontario and its subfolders with Category:Waterloo, Ontario. Also, "hijacked" is a tad harsh, I would say I simply "moved" the category, to better fit with Category:Museums in Canada by city. Fungus Guy (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am going to stick with hijacked. Empty categories get deleted. I have seen perfectly good categories get deleted due to the kind usurpation you engaged in. So, why didn't you initiate a discussion?
As to fitting with Category:Museums in Canada by city -- locals do call the combined city "Kitchener-Waterloo", so I don't see how your choice of name fits any better.
As to your ", Ontario" suffix -- this doesn't really fit, does it? Generally, don't we only disambiguate, when necessary. Geo Swan (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am going to stick with hijacked. Empty categories get deleted. I have seen perfectly good categories get deleted due to the kind usurpation you engaged in. So, why didn't you initiate a discussion?
- Why not merge everything? Toronto, Mississauga, Scarborough, no evidence you moved into another municipality, Category:GTA.
- Why not merge K-W pages with Category:Cambridge, Ontario, do the whole tri-city thing. Or, better yet, Category:Greater Golden Horseshoe.
- And what of Category:People from Kitchener, Ontario, Category:Schools in Kitchener, Category:Education in Kitchener, Category:Education in Waterloo, Ontario, Category:Buildings in Kitchener, Category:Public services in Kitchener or Category:Housing in Waterloo, Ontario? They set the precedent that categories should be divided based on municipalities, which have seperate municipal governments, services, etc.
- Perhaps I will concede to your nostalgia, and add a see also: at the top of each page, directing to the relevant page of the other municipality. That way 'visitors' (as you've mentioned) aren't 'confused.'
- See also: Category:Museums and galleries in Waterloo, Ontario
- Fungus Guy (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- May I suggest Category:Museums and galleries in Waterloo Region? Kitchener-Waterloo is commonly used by people, but it doesn't legally exist as a place the way Waterloo Region does. If there are enough files that we need to sub-divide into Kitchener, Waterloo and the various townships, we can do that, but there's no overlap like there would be with "Kitchener" and "Kitchener-Waterloo". It would fit easily in Category:Regional Municipality of Waterloo. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with everyone on some points.
I agree with Geo Swan that this category is perhaps best dealt with on a regional basis, rather than strictly by municipality. Subcats can be created down the road for the specific municipalities should the need arise.
I agree with Fungus Guy that "hijacked" is unnecessarily harsh. We all do so much category work - if in every instance we needed to stop, notify everyone with an interest, and wait until everyone was holding hands, then we'd get nothing done. There are situations where it is best to be prudent and get input, but this doesn't necessarily strike me as one of them. Fungus is correct that we do not have corresponding museum and gallery categories for the GTA, the National Capital Region, Greater Vancouver, Montreal Island, etc. so why would we have one for KW? We need not agree with FG's premise, but his initial edits were fair and reasonable. The system works well because someone like Geo Swan can come along afterwards and say "hey wait a minute" and there is an opportunity to reassess. (I would also say that FG's comment "I will concede to your nostalgia" is equally unfair to Geo Swan, as Geo Swan raised legitimate issues that have nothing to do with nostalgia.)
Finally, Themightyquill is absolutely correct. We should not be creating a category structure for KW, which is not a legal entity, when we already have Category:Regional Municipality of Waterloo. I appreciate that the region is potentially larger than KW (hard to say, though, since KW is not a term of art), but we should be doing what we can to have competing category trees for KW and Waterloo Region. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Are we all then in favour of Themightyquill's solution of Category:Museums and galleries in Waterloo Region? It strikes me that it addresses Geo's concern about dealing with this on a regional basis, while also addressing FG's concern about consistency with the rest of the category tree. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, TMQ's suggestion addresses both concerns, as well as future concerns (I imagine Category:Museums and galleries in North Dumfries will have too few entries). I also really appreciate the conciliatory tones of the later conversation. Fungus Guy (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Are we all then in favour of Themightyquill's solution of Category:Museums and galleries in Waterloo Region? It strikes me that it addresses Geo's concern about dealing with this on a regional basis, while also addressing FG's concern about consistency with the rest of the category tree. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'll happily agree to replace or redirect Category:Museums and galleries in Kitchener-Waterloo with Category:Museums and galleries in Waterloo Region, or anything else that arises from this discussion.
- I have to disagree with Skeezix1000 that the current system of categories works well. There are purely technical reasons, and historical reasons, why the current system doesn't work well.
- Our current system keeps no record what files were once in a category. You can't look at an empty category, and determine it was once full of elements.
- Historically, administrators remove empty categories, and, when doing so, they have no idea whether the category was emptied by somebody who was unwilling or unable of discussing whether their preferred category structure was a genuine improvement.
Look at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-06#Category:Murghab River, where the best choice of category name was deleted twice, because it was empty after its elements were hijacked. Over the seven years I have been contributing to commons I have seen this happen many times.
- Ultimately, I think our current system of categories should be superceded by a new feature, which lacks its technical disadvantages. The replacement should make it easy to see what elements were once in a category.
- I suspect that when the category system was originally added developers thought that categories would used solely by developers, for maintenance, and would be transparent to readers and editors. Categories don't work that well on our sibling encyclopedia projects either. I have seen suggestions that the replacement feature would not only provide a mechanism to record when elements were placed and removed from categories, but would provide a mechanism to allow contributors to provide a URL to help substantiate why the element belonged in the category. Geo Swan (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't speaking to the technological aspects of the category system, which is way beyond the scope of this discussion. I was merely saying that your comment about the category being "hijacked" was unfair and unrealistic, we are well aware of the methods for reassessing changes to categories, and it is not impossible to find out what was in the category. While I don't disagree with your comments on the current category system, I don't think they justify the accusation that was made here. We all work hard, we all do hundreds of edits at any one sitting, and it is unfair to be making such accusations against a contributor who clearly operates in good faith and does good work. If you disagree with a change, start a discussion (like you did). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- As per my question of October 27, no one seems to object to Themightyquill's solution. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a problem with the categorization of the Category:Nisida. Nisida is a volcano-island in the bay of Naples. It is part of a volcanic area W of Naples called Campi Flegrei (Phlegraean Fields). In Campi Flegrei there are volcanoes, mountains, lakes, islands, municipalities, villages, archaeological sites, natural reserves, etc. From the geological point of view, part of Campi Flegrei are the island of Procida, Vivara and Ischia too.
From the administrative point of view the whole area of Campi Flegrei is subdivided between the municipalities of Naples, Pozzuoli, Bacoli, Monte di Procida, Quarto Flegreo. Now a user continue to cancel the cat Campi Flegrei from the cat Nisida as an overcategorization, because administratively Nisida depends from the village Bagnoli which is a district of Naples.
I think that geographical areas must be distinguished from administrative areas. Administrative areas is a matter which can change during the time; geographical areas doesn't change for millennia. And an administrative subdivision has nothing to do with the geological features of a geographical area. Tyrol is a geographic area: a time it was all in the Austro-Ungaric Empire, now it is subdivided administratively between Austria (Tyrol) and Italy (South Tyrol). But from the geographical point of view it remains Tyrol.
In our case, at present the situation is as follows:
- in the cat “Campi Flegrei” there are all part of them without the volcano-island Nisida;
- the category Nisida has been blocked for a month;
- if I add again the cat Campi Flegrei to the cat Nisida, I will be blocked too.
I would like that we discuss about this problem that affects not only the category Nisida. To distinguish the geographical location or geological area from a politically belonging or an administrative subdivision, and do not consider this a overcategorization, I think that interests all geographical areas in the world. And together we have to decide if in these cases there is a overcategorization or not. --DenghiùComm (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- First of all I would like to puntualize that there is not any problem rather than the one the above user created by overcategorizing an otherwise correctely categorized item. I had to protect the category just in order to be soft and avoid blocking the user who was keeping on rollbacking my edits and overcategorizing Nisida. There's a guideline about overcategorization that the user still seem to ignore, and I guess there's no space for exceptions. Even the comparison with Tyrol is fallacious because Tyrol as region has a category, and both Italy's and Austria's Tyrol have one category each just because the two things are not the same. Nisida as whole is administratively part of Bagnoli which is entirely part of Campi Flegrei, thus no need to place Nisida elsewhere up the tree. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
P.S. For those who don't speak Italian I translate the diff: «Since it wasn't clear to you [meaning: that you must not OVERCAT] I protected the category. If you overcategorize it again once the protection has expired I'm going to block you».
Nisida is a volcano and an island in the sea. Bagnoli is a village on the mainland 2 km far from Nisida. Nisida is not a village and Bagnoli is not on the volcano-island of Nisida. --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- If there are really two different ways to use the name (which I don't know, I take for granted what you write), we can split the category according with the names e.g. "Campi Flegrei (geographical area)" and "Campi Flegrei (administrative area)", and even "Campi Flegrei (mythology)" then use "Campi Flegrei" alone as a mother-category for them all. We have done it hundreds of times before, here on Commons, so I can't really see why a dispute arose in the first place... P.S: Sergio, as an adm you are supposed to work out solutions, not to force them... --User:G.dallorto (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. Thus the principle of "not-overcategorizing" an item is per se right. It's the category name that's wrong. If there's a category with another name it's fine for me, but in this case we must create a disambiguation page. Giovanni, am not forcing a solution, I am simply stating that at the state of the art the categorization as it is is right. An alternate category is welcome, but the point was that Denghiù was forcing towards categorizing the same category in two items of the same leg, which is not allowed here. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that Sergio consider a unique chain for two different branches. Sergio considers the geological or topographical belonging the same as the administrative or political allocation. While these are sure two different things. If he should be right, what would be the wrong category for the Borromean Islands, Lake Maggiore (the geographical location where they are) or the town of Stresa (the municipality from which they are part and depends)? One thing is the belonging, another thing is the location. In this sense I do not see a difference with the categorization of a painting. One thing is the attribution of a painting to an artist (who generally do not change), another thing is the location of the painting (a museum, or a church, or a private collection) that can change over time. Here we have a volcano-island that belongs to the volcanic area called Campi Flegrei (and this does not change), and from the the administrative point of view currently it is located in the territory of the village of Bagnoli (which is a location that can change in the time, maybe tomorrow it will combined with Posillipo or Pozzuoli). That's why I consider that to attribute the category Campi Flegrei to the island of Nisida and to the village of Bagnoli too, is not a overcategorization, but a necessary and proper categorization. --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that a category is a mathematic set. If B is a subset of A, and an element is into B, it's automatically included in A. No use to be contemporarily into A and B being B a subset of A. If an element must be in two separate sets one of which is a subset of the other, then it's the element's name that is wrong. This is Set theory, not an invention of mine. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is Commons a mathematic or a media project? --DenghiùComm (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is a project where rules must be observed. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- The Nisida territory is indeed part of the Bagnoli (District of Naples) administrative item. Nisida however is more than just an administrative item;
- as an island, it is part of the Category:Flegree Islands, this has nothing to do with Bagnoli
- as a vulcano that erupted 10000 years ago, it is part of the Category:Campi Flegrei, this is side by side with the vulcaneous area of Bagnoli
- as a potential set of prison or prison camps from the past, nothing to do with Bagnoli
- as a potential Category:Archaeological sites in Italy for Roman villas or potentially a monastery, nothing to do with Bagnoli.
- So we should not forget that Nisida has several roles, and in each of the roles, it has to be categorised as the specific schema for that role. This has nothing to do with overcategorisation. --Foroa (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately for you, it has instead. Unless there are two separate categories like Nisida (administrative subdivision) and Nisida (island), which may allow each of them to be in two separate branches of the same tree. But until there's only category, it can't be in two subsets of the same tree. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- The Nisida territory is indeed part of the Bagnoli (District of Naples) administrative item. Nisida however is more than just an administrative item;
- Is a project where rules must be observed. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Problem solved. Foroa created the new category Flegree Islands where subcategorizing Nisida without overcategorizing in the Campi Flegrei's tree. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Redundant categories Category:Google Art Project works by Camille Corot, Category:Google Art Project works by Jean-Baptiste Camille Corot can be deleted.
- Please see Category:Google Art Project works by Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot which is named more consistently with other Corot categories such as Category:Paintings by Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot
--Mirokado (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted in favor of Category:Google Art Project works by Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot. --rimshottalk 23:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It is currently empty. So either we need some files here or it needs to go. Lovy Singhal (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete useless at this moment, 更迅速 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, still empty after almost two months. --rimshottalk 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought that decks are mains-powered devices without built-in amps and speakers. Nak Dragon and such. But all photos in this category are something different: portable all-in-one devices. They don't qualify as boomboxes but they aren't decks either. Right, wrong? Retired electrician (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept, wrong description is no reason for deletionVera (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Die Kategorie sollte genauer lauten: Schlossberg (Freiburg im Breisgau) Schubbay (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Präziser = Category:Bismarckturm Schlossberg (Freiburg im Breisgau) Schubbay (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Zustimmung, dieser Name ist besser. Danke.--Dr. med. Mabuse (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- So viele Bismarcktürme gibt es imho in Freiburg nicht. Category:Bismarckturm (Freiburg im Breisgau) sollte auch reichen. --Flominator (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Beauftragt. --Flominator (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- So viele Bismarcktürme gibt es imho in Freiburg nicht. Category:Bismarckturm (Freiburg im Breisgau) sollte auch reichen. --Flominator (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Präziser= Category:Schlossbergbahn (Freiburg im Breisgau) Schubbay (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Kein Problem - Chris j wood (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- erledigt --Flominator (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Präziser=Category:Schlossbergsteg (Freiburg im Breisgau) Schubbay (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ja - stimme voll und ganz zu. Kategorie ist so gut benannt.--Dr. med. Mabuse (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- +1 --Flominator (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The category has been replaced with Category:Östra Göinge Municipality. There is no settlement called Östra Göinge. --Jorchr (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Empty as of now. Also i couldn't find any info of any fort in Puducherry. Most probably there are non. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
This category has no practical use without a mechanism to automatically populate, and is empty every time. Therefore it should be deleted. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 10:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes nobody seems to be using it at the moment. We can delete and if someone needs it in the future, we can recreate it. --Jarekt (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Richtig, da kann es Verwechslungen geben, von mir aus kannste das ändern. --El. (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Support. --Túrelio (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Erledigt, da nach Category:Aerial photographs of Freiburg im Breisgau verschoben --Flominator (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Aha, hier in der Nähe gibt es ja Freiburg an der Elbe. Naja, dann benenn die Kategorie eben um in Freiburg (Breisgau). Aber vergiß der Vollständigkeit halber nicht, daß es noch andere Kategorien gibt wie Category:Aerial photographs of Freiburg, Category: Freiburg .... u.ä. - mfg --Drdoht (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- hier geht es aber um die Erzdiözese Freiburg! --Flominator (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ja, du hast Recht. Die Kategorie ist so in Ordnung. --Schubbay (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept, the archdiocese is called Freiburg. --rimshottalk 08:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept, the archdiocese is called Freiburg. --rimshottalk 08:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept, the archdiocese is called Freiburg. --rimshottalk 08:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Grundsätzlich ja, aber hier ist nicht die Stadt, sondern die Erzdiözese gemeint, siehe Kategorie:Bischof. Gruß, --Flominator (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Das sind keine Bischöfe der Stadt. In der Eigendarstellung wird Erzbistum Freiburg bzw. Erzdiözese Freiburg verwendet, siehe: http://www.ebfr.de/html/misc/impressum.html Grüße --Frank (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept, the archdiocese is called Freiburg. --rimshottalk 08:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept, the archdiocese is called Freiburg. --rimshottalk 08:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Schutzmantelmadonnenaltar (Freiburg im Breisgau). --rimshottalk 22:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there any sense in, I don't think so? --Jörgens.Mi Talk 13:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is there any Adelhauser Kirche in any other Freiburg ? -- A1000 (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Korrekte Schreibweise ist Annakapelle oder Anna-Kapelle; Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Redundant and to Category:Bell Rock (Sedona) which is the area in which W:Bell Rock (Arizona) is located. It's generally considered part of Sedona by local residents and in travel guides. So it's one or the other, but not both. --Stillwaterising (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Bell Rock (Sedona). --rimshottalk 21:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
used only for this event, if kept, needs to be "Category:Smoke clouds". i have categorized all the images additionally under "black smoke" Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment this was made into a redirect, which is fine, but can someone close this CFD?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Black smoke. --rimshottalk 21:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
A pedal boat is a pedalo. Therefore Category:Pedaloes should be used. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Those "pedal boat" and "pedalo" are apparently the US English and UK English terms for the same thing. I think "pedalo" is pretty much completly unfamiliar to US English speakers. I don't have any strong opinion as to if UK or US English should be used here, but the categories should probably be conolodated, and whichever name is not used should be left as a redirect and the term explained for the benifit of speakers of other dialects. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- In this case I would suggest "pedal boat" as the more self-explanatory term for the category title, with a note about the usage of "pedalo" on the cat page. --Mirokado (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Merge as above. I hadn't heard the word "pedalo" before but since it is the older category (and also the more populated one) I guess keeping that name would cause less disruption. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Pedaloes, which is older. --rimshottalk 21:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Wrong name. It should bre Stigmata in heraldry. That is what is shown on the shield, the stigmata or wounds of Christ. Whereas Stigmatisation is probably not a real word at all! Kiltpin (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Português: Paz e bem! Concordo com Kiltpin. Não é mostrado o ato de receber os estigmas, mas mãos já estigmatizadas.
- English: [by Google Tranlator:] Peace and Good! I agree with Kiltpin. Not shown is the act of receiving the stigmata, but already stigmatized hands.Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Stigmata in heraldry. --rimshottalk 06:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
name: The correct name is "Chassé Theater". Paulbe (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- This shouldn't need discussion. Just put in a request at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. - Jmabel ! talk 01:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Chassé Theater. --rimshottalk 18:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Should be renamed Roopa Ganguly per w:Talk:Roopa_Ganguly#Requested_move Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK for me. Yann (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Roopa Ganguly. --rimshottalk 21:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logos, the upload of Eurovision Song Contest logos to Wikimedia Commons is generally not appropriate, so this category should be deleted as empty. There are some remaining logos at Category:Eurovision Song Contest logos, although these are older ones which can be pure text in some cases - these should be looked at separately. I'm also nominating for deletion two other sister categories which are also empty, these being Category:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logos and Category:Eurovision Song Contest 2010 logos. CT Cooper · talk 19:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
No objections for more than 6 months and category is empty. Deleted as empty. --heb [T C E] 08:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Re-opened: It's neither empty nor deleted. --rimshottalk 19:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- There were three categories nominated for deletion here - two have been deleted; one hasn't. In that remaining category, there were two files in the category. I have removed File:EuroSuecia.svg as it was a generic Eurovision heart and not suitable for this category. The other file has been nominated for deletion for copyright related reasons. I hope the sudden appearance of these two files won't delay progress for another six months. CT Cooper · talk 21:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion. When I closed this I had only seen the two co-nominated categories not the main one for some reason. That was a sloppy action on my part :( When I saw the third category I nominated the file present there for deletion and following that I didn't get back to this. If the file nominated for deletion gets deleted I hope it will be okay to delete this category without further discussion. If not I guess it's a new situation :) In kind regards, heb [T C E] 06:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- This category is now empty again. CT Cooper · talk 18:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted per above. --heb [T C E] 05:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted as empty, after the remaining images have been moved or deleted. --rimshottalk 06:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
We have a few hundreds of thousand dead people (by year) and 95% of category:People by name are dead. Clearly redundant category. Foroa (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- This category is created after Category:Dead women, which has been long-standing with nobody assuming it redundant; category:Dead men comes to fill the male equivalent niche which naturally will take some work to fill - as probably most dead figures that we have on Commons are men.. - Tagging a dead man with this cat helps telling apart dead people by their sex. This category is, thus, as redundant as Category:Standing men, Category:Men of Norway and Category:Male artists, I guess. Orrlingtalk 07:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- This category should contain pictures of men, depicting them after their death, and not all men that are currently deceased. The same goes for Category:Dead women of course. --Zejo (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- No... for that we use Category:Corpses. Category:Dead people is for listing historic people who are now, indeed, deceased - and one can see that we sort those people by sex, as is done with e.x. Category:Paintings of people, Category:Sitting people etc... ;-) Orrlingtalk 09:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, then I think this category would get extremely over-crowded. Create categories by year like e g "Male 1970 deaths", and make those subcategories to both Category:Dead men and Category:1970 deaths. --Zejo (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is much more to agree with. Although very-very crowdeed categories are not rare here, if I need to remind this.. – Not the over-crowdedness should determine, if I'm asked, but the efficacy, logic & fluency of navigation, and there I would think that your proposal is most supportable, but I'd take it one stage toward the more inclusive – that is, century male death, instead of decade or year. This can look like that: Category:18th century deceased men/Category:18th century deceased women, Category:19th century deceased men/Category:19th century deceased women and so forth... Opinions? Orrlingtalk 10:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fully redundant with Category:People by date of death and its thousands of subcats: do we have to split for each category and to specify that it is a men or a woman; what do we gain with such a male/female split up: 2 times 154000 items to recategorise ? It is easy to define and start such categories and leave the work for the others. --Foroa (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Heheh... no concensus. You won't be able to discard the cat. ;-) Orrlingtalk 11:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't need a consensus to delete a category that is redundant, not maintained and is only filled up with 0,01 % of its capacity. --Foroa (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- No.. You need to listen carefully now. :) If you try to perform actions that ignore the majority at a given dicussion page (such as this one) you will lose some legitimacy as an editor. I'm afaraid that this consequence is not too far from taking effect as we know that (– now that I notice the identity of the "serial violator") this is not the first nor second time for you to both override/circumvent discussion procedures and be asked to avoid such conduct. No need to make everyone's life on this project so harsh. Please refrain from repeatedly putting your prestige in such embarrassing situations. Orrlingtalk 12:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant and hence useless. The current scheme with subcats by decade/year is perfectly sufficient.--FAEP (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- No.. You need to listen carefully now. :) If you try to perform actions that ignore the majority at a given dicussion page (such as this one) you will lose some legitimacy as an editor. I'm afaraid that this consequence is not too far from taking effect as we know that (– now that I notice the identity of the "serial violator") this is not the first nor second time for you to both override/circumvent discussion procedures and be asked to avoid such conduct. No need to make everyone's life on this project so harsh. Please refrain from repeatedly putting your prestige in such embarrassing situations. Orrlingtalk 12:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't need a consensus to delete a category that is redundant, not maintained and is only filled up with 0,01 % of its capacity. --Foroa (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Heheh... no concensus. You won't be able to discard the cat. ;-) Orrlingtalk 11:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fully redundant with Category:People by date of death and its thousands of subcats: do we have to split for each category and to specify that it is a men or a woman; what do we gain with such a male/female split up: 2 times 154000 items to recategorise ? It is easy to define and start such categories and leave the work for the others. --Foroa (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is much more to agree with. Although very-very crowdeed categories are not rare here, if I need to remind this.. – Not the over-crowdedness should determine, if I'm asked, but the efficacy, logic & fluency of navigation, and there I would think that your proposal is most supportable, but I'd take it one stage toward the more inclusive – that is, century male death, instead of decade or year. This can look like that: Category:18th century deceased men/Category:18th century deceased women, Category:19th century deceased men/Category:19th century deceased women and so forth... Opinions? Orrlingtalk 10:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, then I think this category would get extremely over-crowded. Create categories by year like e g "Male 1970 deaths", and make those subcategories to both Category:Dead men and Category:1970 deaths. --Zejo (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- No... for that we use Category:Corpses. Category:Dead people is for listing historic people who are now, indeed, deceased - and one can see that we sort those people by sex, as is done with e.x. Category:Paintings of people, Category:Sitting people etc... ;-) Orrlingtalk 09:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- This category should contain pictures of men, depicting them after their death, and not all men that are currently deceased. The same goes for Category:Dead women of course. --Zejo (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
So far we can see two unique voices here (out of 4? 3?....) in support of continuing the use of this category, with respect to the long-standing existing Category:Dead women and Category:Dead children, whose existence blocks dialectical attempts to "delete" this-one equivalent category anyway. The only thing left is to agree upon the way in which to reuse it (-and its female equivalent): Group deceased men and women by decade? -By century? or by year, or maybe by other factor. Orrlingtalk 13:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would definitely turn all of these into "by date of death" categories, which can be refined to whatever period makes sense (presumably by year when known, though for some we won't know more closely than century; we'll also want categories for unknown date of death (but known to be dead). The latter probably needs to be subdivided into those where we don't happen to know and those who disappeared (e.g. no one can be sure of Judge Crater's date of death). - Jmabel ! talk 15:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- But why not more simply batch the bucket-kickers into larger groups such as Category:1910s deceased men, Category:1780s deceased women - i.e the decade key? Won't you think that a "by date of death"+combined with the gender would be too specific, and interest-less? (I mean, for the particular year-of-death we do have already the sex-neutral classification, like this; here User:Zejo suggests a parallelling method that would offer attention to the sex of the deceased with, say, grouping by decades or other broader themes). What do you say? Orrlingtalk 15:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
What is the problem with an overcrowded category like the intended Category:Dead men? What is your use case? What is the problem with the intended split into thousands of subcategories: You will slow down catscan by that until it runs into time limits. Here you have all men dead in 1870 (images and categories). And it works for the 1870 deads in the US also. Both dead men and women cats contain only *quite a few* examples and there are some images of already dead which should go to Category:Corpses (some of them I moved already). So from the current absolute number of elements these cats are not overcrowded at all. Compared to number of dead men and women these cats are empty and should be deleted. Nobody will maintain these cats over a longer period. And it's dull and stereotypic work to copy all images and categories to your dead wo/men cats. So if you, Orrling, are counting votes, this is a Delete (both cats for gender correctness). If you need more interesting work, try this. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep; obviously useful basic-sorting category; no strong opinions (as yet) about the best way to organize it Lx 121 (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete. I'm having trouble seeing any use for maintaining a combination of the 49% of humanity that has been male (and already have categories) and the 94% of humanity that have already died. (Only 6% of humans are currently alive: see, for example, Curtin, Ciara (March 1, 2007). "Fact or Fiction?: Living People Outnumber the Dead". Scientific American (web). Retrieved on 2013-03-15.) People who have died, by any division other than time period, seems useless. (And, in my opinion, the birth/death by year categories exist primarily to divide people by when they existed, not whether they are dead per se. Note that Category:Living people was long ago merged into Category:People by name on Commons.) Category:Male human corpses, on the other hand, would make sense. --Closeapple (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
for now this looks like we have 3/6 "unique" voices believing this category merits deletion vs 3/6 others not even expressing a damn intention to defend the existence of this subcategory as it is so obvious for most users & readers... each group is legitimate; as you all note, however, the discussion is being handled as on which better form to employ to better organize the content of the category(ies), it is not handled at a "Deletion request" page ;). We continue reusing these two cats! :-) Orrlingtalk 23:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Neutral--Zejo (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Great. I think (After a second thought) that decades would constitute an all-better grouping level for us here (comparing to centuries or years). Example: Franz Kafka will be endorsed with a new Category:1920s deceased men, and Desideria of Sweden with Category:1860s deceased women. Parents for each will be 1920s deaths and Dead (wo)men. Orrlingtalk 10:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Subgrouping {dead + gender} by decade of death: Any objection? Orrlingtalk 02:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just group deceased people by [Category:deceased people][Category:1934 death][Category:male], which would be quick, easy, and allow for future category intersections. Right now we can't really do those because there are over 14 million files here, and searching through a significant minority of those files are a lot of files to search through, but the tech should be coming, eventually. At that point, the files would all have to be recategorized anyway, so let's make it easy on and plan for the future with multiple categories instead of trying to pin down everything about a person in a single category. For one example, what about old images of kids (where boys and girls both wore dresses until they got older)? Multiple categories still shows them up, although specific categories would leave those images "lost" outside other categories. Banaticus (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- The proposed category scheme is only relevant and applicable to identified items of deceased people - counting much less than 14 millions and is hence much more simple; correct me if I'm wrong but the tech IS there already, as much as spoken about those bots that are able to easily locate-and-recat but I believe that we can manually sort males from females – as has been long done in just so many other big-cats – and those ones where you cannot determine the sex can remain just Dead children, for the matter. Still, the theme of subgrouping deads by gender is basic to Commons, as I'd assume roughly 90% of people-categories are split to gender subs (sometimes male, female and children). Just think: at this moment, Shirley Horn is neatly tagged with everything you can think about, including 2005 deaths; but no single suggestion of the person's sex! Adding Category:21st-century deceaced women, or alternatively 2000s deceaced women, can so simply respond to that criterion. Even when you have Henry Ford's Category:Men of the United States, you still want to know men from women when approaching the 1940s deaths list... Orrlingtalk 08:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- If the tech's there, let's just use multiple categories. If a category gets really big, well, so what? Banaticus (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I for one would have no problem with death and gender being completely disjoing in terms of categories. - Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hm. That makes you neutral, I guess; and for you here with the "multiple categories", could you specify more what it means? Thankz. Orrlingtalk 14:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I for one would have no problem with death and gender being completely disjoing in terms of categories. - Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- If the tech's there, let's just use multiple categories. If a category gets really big, well, so what? Banaticus (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- The proposed category scheme is only relevant and applicable to identified items of deceased people - counting much less than 14 millions and is hence much more simple; correct me if I'm wrong but the tech IS there already, as much as spoken about those bots that are able to easily locate-and-recat but I believe that we can manually sort males from females – as has been long done in just so many other big-cats – and those ones where you cannot determine the sex can remain just Dead children, for the matter. Still, the theme of subgrouping deads by gender is basic to Commons, as I'd assume roughly 90% of people-categories are split to gender subs (sometimes male, female and children). Just think: at this moment, Shirley Horn is neatly tagged with everything you can think about, including 2005 deaths; but no single suggestion of the person's sex! Adding Category:21st-century deceaced women, or alternatively 2000s deceaced women, can so simply respond to that criterion. Even when you have Henry Ford's Category:Men of the United States, you still want to know men from women when approaching the 1940s deaths list... Orrlingtalk 08:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just group deceased people by [Category:deceased people][Category:1934 death][Category:male], which would be quick, easy, and allow for future category intersections. Right now we can't really do those because there are over 14 million files here, and searching through a significant minority of those files are a lot of files to search through, but the tech should be coming, eventually. At that point, the files would all have to be recategorized anyway, so let's make it easy on and plan for the future with multiple categories instead of trying to pin down everything about a person in a single category. For one example, what about old images of kids (where boys and girls both wore dresses until they got older)? Multiple categories still shows them up, although specific categories would leave those images "lost" outside other categories. Banaticus (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Useless
editCombined with Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/10#Subdivide_.22Dead_men.22_by_year.2Fcentury.2Fother.3F, this makes 5 people that advise against further subdivisions by gender. Anyway, such splits can only be realistically made with active bot operator assistance. --Foroa (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- There is no "combined" calculations with other fora than the CFD ;) -- the invitation at the Village Pump was served to draw users who wanted it to this page here, where we have an overwhelming voice for extending the usage of Category:Dead men and Category:Dead women in a reconstructive manner & discontinue the attempts to sabotage this old scheme; anyone who wished to vote in support of the deletion would have come to this page – few did so. As already said, we proudly keep this category run ("four more years") and if needed a bot will be initiated though manual recategorization is prooved good no less. Orrlingtalk 14:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
By country
editI propose Dead wo/men by country, as to variate from the prevailing proposal of "by time" in this discussion. This can be actually perfect as the "Death by country" scheme is to date relatively underdeveloped and attribution of past-people to the Death-by-country pool lacks. Category:Death in Serbia for this matter can have a subcategory:Dead people of Serbia where we further store Dead men of Serbia for males and Dead women of Serbia for females, thus removing from Vladislav Petković the category "Men of Serbia" and re-tagging him with "Dead men of Serbia" – in turn listed at both "Dead men by country" and "Men of Serbia". As said earlier on this page, notably plenty of personalities on Commons (as Slobodan Milošević) don't currently give any idea as to the person's sex! (in both dead and living,, like this one) Orrlingtalk 17:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
A new proposal
editAs some of you may have noticed, in the last few days I have made all the "Xth-century men" and "Xth-century women" categories through the 19th century subcategories of "Dead men" and "Dead women", respectively, since anyone who was an adult in those centuries has now died. This greatly reduces the number of categories that need to be separately placed in "Dead men" and "Dead women"; we mostly need to worry only about people from the 20th and 21st centuries (i.e. people who could still be alive, but are not). Any comments? Gildir (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nice. I'd think "Dead wo/men by country" is more effective and on-the-mark, we boast of a very rich navigable by-country span maintained in big part by me, which can replace the devotion to a gender-deaths-by-time originally discussed here (as you've suggested, a dead-attribution to people through history may be too extensive to serve as a pointful and reasonable categorization of humankind). As no objection appears to have been expressed on the quite old comment above I think we can set in motion a by-country sketch. (The page was lately somehow reddened so I'll revive it in the light of this productive forum.) All of you welcome to give your bit at the spree! example here (deceased persons in respective national men-women subgroups) Orrlingtalk 20:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Already deleted. Presumably the images that were in this category have been relocated as needed, and there's longer any live discussion that needs this CFD topic to remain open. If more discussion of any new categories is needed, please open a new CFD. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there a difference between this category and Category:Sainsbury's. Or is this duplication? Oxyman (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- The parent company is still formally named "J Sainsbury plc" but the vast majority of their branding is as "Sainsbury's". Look closely at the HQ pictures, even that is branded as "Sainsbury's business centre". I support merging to Category:Sainsbury's. the wub "?!" 14:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. Since no-one else has said anything in over 7 months, I'll merge to Category:Sainsbury's. Ubcule (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- All content has now been moved and the old cat is now empty and removed from the supermarkets hierarchy. Someone can formally close the discussion if they wish. Ubcule (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Sainsbury's. --rimshottalk 19:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
project on eo wikipedia appears to be inactive TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I moved there one relevant article previously in Category:Spoken Wikipedia, and I suggested to the author of traduki.de to release their works (a few dozens of spoken abridged Eo Wikipedia articles) under a compatible licence. There is also eo:Projekto:Aŭdioartikoloj, but that project seems inactive. I may try to invite the community to reactive it, particularly if the earlier idea does not work out. Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept, one file exists and this is the best way to categorize it. --rimshottalk 07:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Purely a problem with the category name; we need a category for this topic. First off, "Construction" shouldn't be capitalised. Secondly, the French portion is misspelled and apparently wrongly pluralised; it's fr:Poteau sur sole, not Poteaux-sur-solle. Thirdly, I've never before seen a bilingual category name; either we should go with the English "post-on-sill", or we should decide (like en:wp apparently has) that the French term is common enough in English that we should use it here. Therefore, this should be renamed: either Category:Poteau sur sole construction or Category:Post-on-sill construction. I don't care which way we go, but we need to pick one of them. Nyttend (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. This category should be moved to Category:Poteau sur sole construction, since it is mostly french colonial architecture that uses this construction technique. Fungus Guy (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Poteaux-sur-sol construction as per the enWP category name. --rimshottalk 07:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- transl.: The correct and common name of this city is en:Freiburg im Breisgau. There is at least one other Freiburg in Germany.
- Support Rename of all categories related to this Freiburg to Freiburg im Breisgau. --Túrelio (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Please advise him to put all the categories together in one discussion an not in 35 different discussions. Thats ridiculous. --Jörgens.Mi Talk 13:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ich weiß leider nicht, wie alle betreffenden Kategorien in einer Diskussion zusammenzufassen sind. --Schubbay (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ich weiß nicht, wieviele Categories du schon bei Commons neu angelegt hast. Ab 10 Zeichen wird es sehr unübersichtlich in der Eingabemaske. Recht haben und Recht bekommen ist zweierlei. Mein Vorschlag: lassen wir Freiburg so bestehen, und wenn jemand hier etwas zu dem klitzekleinen Freiburg/Elbe hat, dann muß derjenige "Freiburg (Elbe)" schreiben. ANderes Beispiel: HANNOVER gibt es nicht nur in FRG, sondern auch anderswo auf der Welt. Niemand kam auf die Idee "Hannover (Niedersachsen)" zu schreiben. --Drdoht (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Du verwechselst Äpfel mit Birnen. Der offizielle Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau, im Breisgau ist also nicht nur ein enzyklopädisches Unterscheidungsmerkmal zu anderen Freiburgs sondern fester Namensbestandteil. Der Vergleich mit Hannover hinkt also sehr. Im Übrigen habe ich kein Problem mit längeren Kategoriebezeichnungen in der Eingabemaske. --Schubbay (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Für die "Category: Freiburg" ist hier bereits ewig schon eine automatische Weiterleitung zu "Category: Freiburg im Breisgau" installiert. Übersehen?? Ich wünsche weiterhin viel Vergnügen beim Umbenennen der Kategorien. (Watt mut dat mut) --Drdoht (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- While I don't think it would cause problems to rename Freiburg to Freiburg im Breisgau, renaming most of the other categories might be prussian correct but not very practical. Does the other Freiburg even have an archdiocese, bishops, auxiliary bishops, a Schutzmantelmadonnenaltar (very impressive German word btw), a Krozingen-Kapelle?--Stanzilla (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you, there will be no great advantage for the categories. First Schubbay should correct "Freiburg" zo "Freiburg im Breisgau" everywhere, e.g. here. --Drdoht (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- While I don't think it would cause problems to rename Freiburg to Freiburg im Breisgau, renaming most of the other categories might be prussian correct but not very practical. Does the other Freiburg even have an archdiocese, bishops, auxiliary bishops, a Schutzmantelmadonnenaltar (very impressive German word btw), a Krozingen-Kapelle?--Stanzilla (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Für die "Category: Freiburg" ist hier bereits ewig schon eine automatische Weiterleitung zu "Category: Freiburg im Breisgau" installiert. Übersehen?? Ich wünsche weiterhin viel Vergnügen beim Umbenennen der Kategorien. (Watt mut dat mut) --Drdoht (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Du verwechselst Äpfel mit Birnen. Der offizielle Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau, im Breisgau ist also nicht nur ein enzyklopädisches Unterscheidungsmerkmal zu anderen Freiburgs sondern fester Namensbestandteil. Der Vergleich mit Hannover hinkt also sehr. Im Übrigen habe ich kein Problem mit längeren Kategoriebezeichnungen in der Eingabemaske. --Schubbay (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ich weiß nicht, wieviele Categories du schon bei Commons neu angelegt hast. Ab 10 Zeichen wird es sehr unübersichtlich in der Eingabemaske. Recht haben und Recht bekommen ist zweierlei. Mein Vorschlag: lassen wir Freiburg so bestehen, und wenn jemand hier etwas zu dem klitzekleinen Freiburg/Elbe hat, dann muß derjenige "Freiburg (Elbe)" schreiben. ANderes Beispiel: HANNOVER gibt es nicht nur in FRG, sondern auch anderswo auf der Welt. Niemand kam auf die Idee "Hannover (Niedersachsen)" zu schreiben. --Drdoht (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's simply prussian correctness. The second Freiburg/Elbe is a small village with roundabout 1700 inhabitants ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiburg,_Lower_Saxony). Even the official webpage of my hometown is http://www.freiburg.de. I don't think there is any improvement by this action. --Jörgens.Mi Talk 08:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ich weiß leider nicht, wie alle betreffenden Kategorien in einer Diskussion zusammenzufassen sind. --Schubbay (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support to rename all categories related to this Freiburg to Freiburg im Breisgau. It's not a prussian correctness: there is a third Freiburg in Switzerland. --DenghiùComm (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose zu dem Vorschlag all categories. Einige Kategorien beziehen sich nicht auf die Stadt. In der Eigendarstellung des Bistums wird z.B. Erzbistum Freiburg bzw. Erzdiözese Freiburg verwendet, siehe: http://www.ebfr.de/html/misc/impressum.html Zumindest diese Teildiskussionen gehören abgetrennt. Grüße --Frank (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support I encountered already too many mistakes and mix ups. --Foroa (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The category has been moved to Category:Freiburg im Breisgau and disambiguated. At least the following renames are left:
Rename Category:Architecture of Freiburg to Category:Architecture of Freiburg im Breisgau (71 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Architecture of Freiburg;Architecture of Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Buildings in Freiburg to Category:Buildings in Freiburg im Breisgau (86 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Buildings in Freiburg;Buildings in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Windows in Freiburg to Category:Windows in Freiburg im Breisgau (5 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Windows in Freiburg;Windows in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Education in Freiburg to Category:Education in Freiburg im Breisgau (14 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Education in Freiburg;Education in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Education buildings in Freiburg to Category:Education buildings in Freiburg im Breisgau (20 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Education buildings in Freiburg;Education buildings in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Firefighting in Freiburg to Category:Firefighting in Freiburg im Breisgau (6 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Firefighting in Freiburg;Firefighting in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Fire engines of Freiburg to Category:Fire engines of Freiburg im Breisgau (13 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Fire engines of Freiburg;Fire engines of Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Fire stations in Freiburg to Category:Fire stations in Freiburg im Breisgau (6 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Fire stations in Freiburg;Fire stations in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Geography of Freiburg to Category:Geography of Freiburg im Breisgau (17 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Geography of Freiburg;Geography of Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:History of Freiburg to Category:History of Freiburg im Breisgau (275 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.History of Freiburg;History of Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Monuments and memorials in Freiburg to Category:Monuments and memorials in Freiburg im Breisgau (42 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Monuments and memorials in Freiburg;Monuments and memorials in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Holocaust memorials in Freiburg to Category:Holocaust memorials in Freiburg im Breisgau (11 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Holocaust memorials in Freiburg;Holocaust memorials in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Night in Freiburg to Category:Night in Freiburg im Breisgau (95 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Night in Freiburg;Night in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:People of Freiburg to Category:People of Freiburg im Breisgau (248 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.People of Freiburg;People of Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Plaques in Freiburg to Category:Plaques in Freiburg im Breisgau (159 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Plaques in Freiburg;Plaques in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Quality images of Freiburg to Category:Quality images of Freiburg im Breisgau (29 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Quality images of Freiburg;Quality images of Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Quarters of Freiburg to Category:Quarters of Freiburg im Breisgau (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Quarters of Freiburg;Quarters of Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Signs in Freiburg to Category:Signs in Freiburg im Breisgau (24 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Signs in Freiburg;Signs in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Sports in Freiburg to Category:Sports in Freiburg im Breisgau (43 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Sports in Freiburg;Sports in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Freiburg on stamps to Category:Freiburg on stamps im Breisgau (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Freiburg on stamps;Freiburg on stamps im Breisgau;r; |
- That one is wrong obviously. Rename to Category:Freiburg im Breisgau on stamps! -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're obviously right. That's why I wanted to wait a week, but someone started doing the moves prematurely. Moved to Category:Freiburg im Breisgau on stamps. --rimshottalk 21:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Rename Category:Statistics of Freiburg to Category:Statistics of Freiburg im Breisgau (12 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Statistics of Freiburg;Statistics of Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Streets and squares in Freiburg to Category:Streets and squares in Freiburg im Breisgau (4 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Streets and squares in Freiburg;Streets and squares in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Notgeld of Freiburg to Category:Notgeld of Freiburg im Breisgau (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Notgeld of Freiburg;Notgeld of Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Transport in Freiburg to Category:Transport in Freiburg im Breisgau (36 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Transport in Freiburg;Transport in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Transport buildings in Freiburg to Category:Transport buildings in Freiburg im Breisgau (23 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Transport buildings in Freiburg;Transport buildings in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Bridges in Freiburg to Category:Bridges in Freiburg im Breisgau (38 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Bridges in Freiburg;Bridges in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
Rename Category:Train stations in Freiburg to Category:Train stations in Freiburg im Breisgau (10 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Train stations in Freiburg;Train stations in Freiburg im Breisgau;r; |
- I will request these moves in a week or so. --rimshottalk 18:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Freiburg im Breisgau. --rimshottalk 18:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Moved to Category:Interiors of churches in Freiburg. That doesn't answer the question about "im Breisgau", though. --rimshottalk 22:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Auferstehungskirche (Freiburg im Breisgau). --rimshottalk 18:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Dominikanerkloster St. Albert (Freiburg im Breisgau). --rimshottalk 18:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Dreifaltigkeitskirche (Freiburg im Breisgau). --rimshottalk 18:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Erlöserkirche (Freiburg im Breisgau). --rimshottalk 18:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Franziskanerkloster (Freiburg im Breisgau). --rimshottalk 18:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Friedenskirche (Freiburg im Breisgau). --rimshottalk 18:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete: It is redundant, ambiguous, and incompatible with the rest. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Requested speedydeletion: Per above. FDMS 4 16:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
|
This category has McNeill spelt incorrectly. Please see Category:Google Art Project works by James Abbott McNeill Whistler. I have already corrected the spellings on the only page it contained, so this can be deleted. --Mirokado (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Also Category:Google Art Project works by James Abbott McNeill Whistler, American (active England)
This has a description after the artist's title, inconsistent with the other GAP categories. Here I have also corrected the only file which was in this category so it can be deleted.--Mirokado (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Requests withdrawn, User:Dcoetzee prefers redirected categories, I guess that will help with any subsequent rogue input from GAP. Both now updated to redirects. --Mirokado (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Redirected and subsequently withdrawn. --rimshottalk 20:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Unnecessary duplication of Category:Miniature railways - all miniature railways are rideable by definition, otherwise they would be considered to be model railways. An optimist on the run! 14:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- There are also miniature railways too small to be ridden, yet not considered as model railways. These include both many garden railways (currently a subcat of miniature railways) and also the small model engineering scales (such as 2½" gauge) that are miniature live steam railways generally found in parks as too big for a domestic garden, yet smaller than the 3½" gauge railways that are usually considered as the lower limit for riding. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept, no reply to objection. --rimshottalk 13:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Are these pics of No. 1 Road Pumpstation? Fungus Guy (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. The City of Richmond website places it at the "south foot of No. 1 Road at Bayview Street" which is where that structure is according to Google Street View .. but it doesn't look much like it.. could there have been additional structure added on to it?? -- OlEnglish (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your city link says "New designs underway indicate the building will acquire a peaked corrugated metal roof and wood cladding," and the City of Richmond construction projects 2012 states "The existing No. 1 Road North drainage pump station is nearing the end of its service life and is not able to meet the demands of future development. Completion of this station will replace the existing structure, modernize the equipment and increase the pumping capacity from 1.98 cubic meters per second to 4.5 cubic meters per second to meet future predicted flows." So it appears they replaced it with this. Fungus Guy (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept, apparently the old pump station has been replaced/remodeled and what we see is the result. --rimshottalk 13:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nach de:Freiburger_Münster heißt die Kapelle eigentlich "Lichtenfels-Krozingen-Kapelle", also verschieben nach Category:Verkündigungsaltar, Lichtenfels-Krozingen-Kapelle. Die gibt es ja sicherlich nur einmal. --rimshottalk 18:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Verkündigungsaltar, Lichtenfels-Krozingen-Kapelle as per myself, after no objections. --rimshottalk 14:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Should be Category:Baptist church in Freiburg im Breisgau, as category names are supposed to be English. --rimshottalk 18:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Baptist church in Freiburg im Breisgau as per myself, after no objections. --rimshottalk 14:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Korrekter Name der Stadt ist Freiburg im Breisgau Schubbay (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Freie evangelische Gemeinde Freiburg, as that is the name they call themselves. --rimshottalk 18:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Freie evangelische Gemeinde Freiburg as per myself, after no objections. --rimshottalk 14:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
This categorie means Heraldic helmets affronté in crest and Helmets affronté is a heraldic categorie too. Perhelion (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- They are both heraldic categories. The difference is that one is about helmets in heraldry (the object), and the other is limited to its use as an heraldic external element of the blazon, the heraldic helmet.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, affronté means something like front view, so "helmets affronté" = helmets (front view), in heraldic terms.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hello DarwIn, yes that have I've meant, but the categories don`t say this but they are wrong named too (I mean not the French terminology). For example you have created with the same logic Category:Heraldic helmets in profile and Category:Helmets in profile. I really don't think Heraldic is a terminology to describe or differentiate a heraldic object!? I've removed all non heraldic files from Category:Helmets in profile (as you can see in practice not many people understand this (your) meaning of categorizing). That what you want is a heraldic external element/object like crest. In German heraldry there is a clear term for this, called de:Oberwappen. What is the corresponding heraldic terms in English or French? I think this sittuation is originated through Category:Heraldic helmets and Category:Helmets in heraldry in Category:Heraldic external ornaments. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I see now you have continued a famous unsolved problem Commons_talk:WikiProject_Heraldry#Renaming_the_category_tree and also Commons_talk:WikiProject_Heraldry#Category:Heraldic_helmets_affronté -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- If I well recall, in my attempt to organize those categories I heavily relied in late 19th, early 20th century heraldic treaties to find proper names for them. The proper name in English for helmets as external ornaments seems to be "heraldic helmet" indeed. See here for instance, in a 2004 book on the theme. I understand that this could be very confusing, it was also to me in the beginning, since my heraldic knowledge in general was rudimentary (it's way better now), and I'm Portuguese and was not very used to the English and French terminology (but now that I've became used to it I understand it way better than the Portuguese, which is sloppy at times). One way to prevent confusion is to explain in both categories what they are about. I don't know of any better alternative to "Heraldic Helmets" as a name for this cat.
- By the way, my intention, when I started to divide the heraldic helmets into profile, affronté, closed, open, etc. was to provide some logical system in which the real useful categories (baron helmet, gentleman helmet, etc) could be placed and easily reached.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think that here it's a mistake. Affronté (french), like affrontato (italian) and facing (english) is not an helmet in front, but is used only for two heraldic figures (like the helmets or any other animal) seen in profile opposing face to face, and so one with the face toward sinister side of the shield and the other with the face toward the dexter side of the shield. --Massimop (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, in English heraldry it is used for a single helmet, and it means a full-facing helmet (towards the viewer, not another helmet). Check usage.-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I finded, in English heraldry, the words affrontant (http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/Jpglossa.htm), with the same meaning of fernch word affronté, or affrontee (http://historymedren.about.com/od/pimbley/a/pim_a_2.htm), with the same meaning of fernch word affronté, or affronty (http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/Jpglossa.htm), with the same meaning of french expression de front, or affrontée (http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/heraldry_a.aspx), with the same meaning of the french expression de front and the english expression full-faced. The use of the french term affronté (not affrontée) implies the french meaning. If you want the meaning full-faced you have to use affrontée or affronty. --Massimop (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps Category:Heraldic helmets full-faced would be equally correct then, and more easily understood?-- Darwin Ahoy! 04:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I finded, in English heraldry, the words affrontant (http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/Jpglossa.htm), with the same meaning of fernch word affronté, or affrontee (http://historymedren.about.com/od/pimbley/a/pim_a_2.htm), with the same meaning of fernch word affronté, or affronty (http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/Jpglossa.htm), with the same meaning of french expression de front, or affrontée (http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/heraldry_a.aspx), with the same meaning of the french expression de front and the english expression full-faced. The use of the french term affronté (not affrontée) implies the french meaning. If you want the meaning full-faced you have to use affrontée or affronty. --Massimop (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, in English heraldry it is used for a single helmet, and it means a full-facing helmet (towards the viewer, not another helmet). Check usage.-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think that here it's a mistake. Affronté (french), like affrontato (italian) and facing (english) is not an helmet in front, but is used only for two heraldic figures (like the helmets or any other animal) seen in profile opposing face to face, and so one with the face toward sinister side of the shield and the other with the face toward the dexter side of the shield. --Massimop (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, my intention, when I started to divide the heraldic helmets into profile, affronté, closed, open, etc. was to provide some logical system in which the real useful categories (baron helmet, gentleman helmet, etc) could be placed and easily reached.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- To me first it is so far whether French or English terminology, but not necessarily mixed (but this was not my mainly intention for the discussion)! You say "Heraldic helmets" is a English heraldic term. But we need a distinction between Heraldic helmets "in shield" and "above shield". Then I would prefer clearly French (for two reasons): someone relatively lowbrow in heraldry (or just don't know English heraldry), definitely does not recognize/find this. We must make a clear distinction for laymen (or just normal Commons-user) to the normal common categorization on Commons (I mean do not use Heraldic = Heraldry for different things). So I would prefer French if it gives a clearer term , and in general it would make a more clearly relation to the heraldry. But unfortunately there is not such term, Casque or Heaume?!? So I prefer English.
- "As Charge - so even element of the coat of arms - the helm in shield is rare. There are arms on which an emblem is shown wearing the helmet or the helmet is simply placed the plate holders." So after the context Category:Heraldic figures (chrages?) I would suggest:
- Category:Heraldic helmets affronty
- Category:Helmets affronty in heraldry - not Category:Helmets affronty or Category:Helmets affronté
- Thanks for your response. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 09:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I will follow the system you deem to be the best, given that there are at least two separate categories, one for heraldic helmets, and another for helmets as charges.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 09:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok then we/you/I do start move? --
πϵρήλιο℗ 11:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok then we/you/I do start move? --
Done ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 21:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
This categorie seems a Heraldic categorie but there is also Category:Heraldic helmets affronté Perhelion (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please discuss this here --> Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/10/Category:Heraldic helmets affronté.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Closed, together with the related discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/10/Category:Heraldic helmets affronté. --rimshottalk 21:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
possible disambiguation from Category:Cathedral of St. Peter in Chains in Peterborough, Ontario Fungus Guy (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Change to Category:Saint Peter in Chains Cathedral (Cincinnati, Ohio). Farragutful (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment After three years isn't it time to move on this? No one has opposed making a move. We have two cathedrals with similar names, which implies to me both categories should differentiate themselves based on the city they are in for greater clarity. "Category:Cathedral of St. Peter in Chains (Peterborough, Ontario)" already exists. Is there really going to be a controversy if "Cincinnati" or "Cincinnati, Ohio" is added to this category's name? Farragutful (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Saint Peter in Chains Cathedral (Cincinnati, Ohio) and set a disambiguation. --Achim (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The user Pava insists that the above mentioned category has to be a subcat to the following categories:
- Category:Industrial design
- Category:Symbols of Italy
- Category:Quality
- Category:Badges
I tried to explain to him that "Made in Italy" is nothing more and nothing less than a "merchandise mark indicating that a product has been manufactured in Italy" but unfortunately, I had little success--FAEP (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- FAEP analysis is partial and tendentious, you'll better understand what it is reading his talk, there is no question of merchandise.
- I invite you to take a look at this source: [www.esteri.it/MAE/IT/Sala_Stampa/ArchivioNotizie/Interventi/2012/03/20120322_Terzi_ASEAN.htm] (site of Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) is the foreign ministry of the government of the Republic of Italy, but i have more (easy reperability) external source) no marketing agencyas he says. and he still considers unreliable source with promotional purposes. (when I asked him if I had more faith in him, a simple user like me who exhibits a personal opinion, or the ministry of a government of one of the most important states of the EU and the G8 I gave him the nationalist fanatic and I asked why there would add also "one of the most important of the galaxy") diminishing the credibility of my source)
The diciture Made In Italy is third most well-known brand in the world after coca cola and VISA. defined (and internationally recognized) quality mark and symbol of Italy.
- In addition, I also ask, since we're here, how productive his behavior, which differs from the real intentions of the commons, and even leads :to irony where belittling and making fun of my words. I remember that the user is "autopatrolling" and this should make him be more of his responsibilities included rb heavy and that is free, as is his actions are his responsibility, but also the admin who gave him this title.
Tomorrow I think I can participate in this discussion, I trust in you, I will return as soon as possible, (sorry if my english is no very good but I do not know exactly how language and are 4:30 am) thanks --Pava (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- the category must be "clean", there are images no right. for example, company brands take advantage of the category for advertising. There is a warning (template) that invites users to not make that mistake? tank you. --Pava (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- What the hell are you meaning???--FAEP (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- For me, this category name is misleading. "Made in Italy" means basically manufactured in Italy, while some people try to make it appear as a quality label. When I think about cars and motorbikes made in Italy, the first association is poor quality (although this seems improved in the last years). So if the category means some sort of label, it must contain that in the name. Commons is not a place to make promotion for a would be quality label; it can have its right place, but without the promotional aspects pushed by an Italian ministry. --Foroa (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- And anyway, all "Mades in xxx" Category:Country of origin will claim quality, so no need to "fabricate" redundant categories that emphasise quality as all those categories will belong there too. --Foroa (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- beyond that the phrase "car and motorcycle produced in Italy are of low quality" O_O? the honda produces in Italy, the ducats you seem low quality? piaggio? Ferrari? Lamborghini? Pagani? Alfa Romeo? Maserati? you seem low quality? ok, let's not stop talking about these things that are off topic. The speech that I do is this: Unlike other "country of origin" the words "Made in Italy" has become a brand. Someone, not me, I even wrote in the incipit of the same category and reported by the website of the Ministry degl'esteri Italian, not me. So we have to find a category where the words "made in Italy" can be made as a brand. is a matter of fact, someone may be annoyed or to be "promotional" but it is not. is a fact.
- but my intent is not to advertise, my intent is to find a category idona upload some photos, and I have to have it, not that you can not create just because someone thinks it's promotional. mica load advertising or Italian brands or do some advertising. Really do not be untrusting, we try to cooperate rather than slowing everything with endless controversy
- We can create a category called "Made in Italy (brand)" to avoid confusion with the current one, what do you think? --Pava (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that the Italian government often issues labels without considering further implications.
- In its very broader sense Made in Italy is anything built within our boundaries (which can't be safely applied to Italian fashion bags built in China or Romania…).
- In the sense meant by the Minister i guess that Made in Italy means anything created and enginereed in Italy, no matter where it was materially produced, and that is distinguished by a superior or particular level of quality.
- Unfortunately the Minister didn't specify what must be distinguished as made in Italy meant as such.
- Thus, while reckoning that Pava had no POV intents, I am afraid that classifying Made in Italy as Industrial design and Quality can be an endless source of controversies.
- I guess that it can be safely classified under Symbols of Italy. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- ok, not bad but there is a subcategory of the cat "brands" (besides italian brand) where to put "Made in Italy" that he does not think of anyone who wants to promote? Also, I would not be in my turn controversial, but the controversy is out of commons if there are users who persecute others and instead of thinking about the good of the commons think about this sort of thing here in order to act in a non-productive degl 'others at work. I wonder what the purpose--Pava (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a brand of Italy and as such it is categorised. National symbols are things like the anthem, the national personification, the coat of arms and - of course - the national flag. Made in "WHEREEVER" is simply a brand, nothing more, nothing less. And with regards to the "Pava had no POV intents" statement: Trying to promote a countries product, by claiming that they are tantamount to quality is at the very heart of the matter "POV intended advertising interests".
- However, at the moment MiI is a subcat of "Products of Italy", "Brands of Italy" and "Country of origin". I'm sure that we all can agree that this is absolutely fine and since you're claiming that you're not trying to promote anything it can stay this way. On account of the fact that every "Made in COUNTRY" textlogo is a very simply styled wordmark, the only category that comes to my mind as another potentially appropriate one would be "Category:Simple text logos". Regards.--FAEP (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- ok, not bad but there is a subcategory of the cat "brands" (besides italian brand) where to put "Made in Italy" that he does not think of anyone who wants to promote? Also, I would not be in my turn controversial, but the controversy is out of commons if there are users who persecute others and instead of thinking about the good of the commons think about this sort of thing here in order to act in a non-productive degl 'others at work. I wonder what the purpose--Pava (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- And anyway, all "Mades in xxx" Category:Country of origin will claim quality, so no need to "fabricate" redundant categories that emphasise quality as all those categories will belong there too. --Foroa (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- For me, this category name is misleading. "Made in Italy" means basically manufactured in Italy, while some people try to make it appear as a quality label. When I think about cars and motorbikes made in Italy, the first association is poor quality (although this seems improved in the last years). So if the category means some sort of label, it must contain that in the name. Commons is not a place to make promotion for a would be quality label; it can have its right place, but without the promotional aspects pushed by an Italian ministry. --Foroa (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- What the hell are you meaning???--FAEP (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- @ FAEP: I'm not to say that "made in Italy" is synonymous with quality, but the whole world, and certainly not I tell you with the aim of promoting Italian products, is merely to recognize a fact, without making an issue nationalist without envy. Then, if here on commons do not want to recognize some limitations yours, is a commons problem, a problem creating by users like you. However I am not here to do battle in the name of Made in Italy, sooner or later will be given to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, even here, when they start other users with different mentality to participate in this kind of discussion.--Pava (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC) PS: if I wanted to advertise made in Italy (which is absurd in my opinion that a user wants to advertise a brand, here on commons, is wasted energy because with little return but anyone can think the image that you want) I same open and reported this discussion, in order to publicize it as much as possible, however I did not open it certainly :) This write it here just because we judge the actions and not users, but you have to take action to judge the their responsibilities--Pava (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Warming up this thread @Pava: , @FAEP: for to get it closed. Regarding that a categorizing system should improve the findability of information a renaming to Category:Made in Italy (label) would not be beneficial, so it should be kept as it is now. Further categorization: Category:Made in Italy is a subcat of Category:Products of Italy, Category:Brands of Italy and Category:Country of origin. The first one has to be removed because Made in Italy isn't a product like chocolate or vehicles, the other should stay. A different thing is the question: What is intended to be kept in that category? It might be flooded by anything that is produced in Italy, so it must be avoided to become a dupe of Category:Products of Italy. Entries by Giovanni Lidano can be seen already. --Achim (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Kept and cleaned up. --Achim (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a very poorly defined category. What makes a city a "small city"? Is this meant to include the entire metropolitan area, or just Jefferson County? The name indicates the metro area (multiple counties in two US states), but the category that's been applied to it suggests Jefferson County, which has boundaries identical to those of Louisville. I'd suggest merger to the main Louisville category, of which this is presently a subcategory. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
No opposition in over three years, and only four images in the category. Added {{Bad name}} so the category should be deleted soon. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Propose this category for deletion for the reason that it has no subject, because Litwin is just Polish (and formerly also Russian) for Lithuanian. --glossologist (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- There are articles ru:Литвины, en:Litvin, pl:Litwini w znaczeniu historycznym, uk:Литвини. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm pretty aware of that. Unfortunately they don't make this category any more valid as they describe the historic usage of the Slavic-language ethnonym Litvin/Litwin which doesn't exist in English and doesn't give any clear criteria for a categorisation, which is the most important. --glossologist (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with the deletion. This category just makes no sense. GiW (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete makes no sense. 更迅速 (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- So do you mean that there should be no separate category for "residents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" ? Where should they go then ? --Foroa (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- So by this logic "residents of USSR" should go under category:Ruskies etc.? Please don't invent things. 更迅速 (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps such category may exist, but certainly not under the name "Litwins", plus at the moment all that category contains is just three 19th century (i.e., post-GDL era) paintings. --glossologist (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- So do you mean that there should be no separate category for "residents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" ? Where should they go then ? --Foroa (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
General consensus seems to be to delete. If Category:Residents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania needs to be created in the future, that's fine, but I'm not sure it's worth it for four images. I've moved them to both Category:Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Category:People of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and added {{Bad name}} to the category, so it should be deleted soon. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this is really the Category:Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, support redirects to satellite on WP. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have turned the "really the ..." link into a visible category link to avoid adding these pages to the cat. Really I don't understand what Mercurywoodrose means... --Mirokado (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Whoops. thanks, I really try to avoid that...really:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- turned this category into a redirect to the correct one, as noncontroversial.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Whoops. thanks, I really try to avoid that...really:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Defense Meteorological Satellite Program in May 2014. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
sculptures (also when they are made out of food) are protected by copyright. Because they are made out of food they are by definition contemporary. This category should be deleted because it would contain copyright violations by definition. Vera (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- At least, one has a category where such images can be trapped, provided they are not PD (such as old posters/promotion) and they don't relate to the production (moulds) or packaging process ... --Foroa (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I've added templates to the category indicating that copyrighted commercial packaging and products should not be uploaded. Otherwise, I think Foroa is right that it makes sense to catch these copyrighted images here so they can be easily located and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Copyright issues.
See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Files_erroneously_transferred_to_Commons
Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Botaurus thinks that this is not a right category name, because artist name or museum is lacking and the files cannot be found. He thinks using this category is vandalism. Furthermore he sees a problem using an English title. There are many categories used like that without problems. In the main category Category:Paintings by Titian in the Prado Museum are six similar categories e.g. Category:Bacchanal of the Andrians. I agree that a category mentioning artists name, etc. for description is better. But even this normally used category name should be kept and used without misunderstandings. Oursana (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think that it's important to put the name of the author in the name of the painting, specially when the subject is very popular (like in this case the Virgin, St Anthony, and St Rochus). The name of the Museum I would let it by side, and to use only if of the same painter you have two or more paintings with the same subject or title (e.g. some paintings of Caravaggio), or if you have paintings of different artists but with the same subject/name. --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oursana & DenghiùComm: Botaurus redirected this category to Category:Virgin and Child between St Anthony of Padua and St Roque by Titian in the Prado Museum in October 2012. If everyone is okay with that, I suggest that we close discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Disagree. Without the museum name. There aren't other paintings of the same artist with the same subject (or title) that justify this additional specification. IMO the category name must be Category:Virgin and Child between St Anthony of Padua and St Roque, by Titian. ---DenghiùComm (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree The addition of the museum's name is not necessary but helpful and there is no need to change this now. You should never use - as you often did - a comma in front of ...by Titian or any other painter.--Oursana (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oursana Why? Is there a specific rule? IMO it's good to distinguish the title of the work by the name of the artist. We can do it with a comma or with brackets. --DenghiùComm (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's just part of English grammar/punctuation rules. Commas don't go there. I agree with Oursana, that the name of the museum isn't necessary, but it's not a particular problem either. I'd say leave it as it is. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok. --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy. So cat and everything in it should probably be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I did not upload any cat in here.. it's about dynosaurs :?? --Sailko (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cat: Category. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I know, lol. For my personal point of view, I took and uploaded the picture because it has not an artistic, but a didactic purpouse. Shooting was allowed in the museum and I don't think there's any possible risk about holding these images. --Sailko (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cat: Category. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Images and category have been deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Per recent nonsense at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/10/Category:Armored vehicles in Latin America, it appears that Wikimedia has now decreed that "Latin America" has "no real political basis".
If that is true, then we should delete this category. If that is not true, and if WM can manage to define Latin America (something that the real world seems to have no problem in doing), then we ought to stop (and promptly!) the ongoing deletion of the child categories, and the decategorization of their content.
Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Here in Europe, Latin America has a geographical, cultural, political and historical sense - may be as we refer to Europe in the same way : see Histoire de l'Europe ( transl. : History of Europe ) on FR-Wikipedia. So I would consider this cat as having a sense also at first sight. Thib Phil (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep A useful category that parallels othes sources such as museum collections,history texts, and academic departments. Wmpearl (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Closing as keep due to lack of consensus for deletion - Themightyquill (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
|
It is usefull to extend the discussion of Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/03/Category:Riverboats with also this category. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- @Stunteltje: The discussion linked above was closed in September 2014. Does this one need further discussion or can it be closed? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- For me it can be closed. In fact the majority of the categorised barges is self propelled, but not mentioned here. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Closing with support of nominator. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Why is this person so important to have an own cat? Sanandros (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- A category or the lack of it is not, and never has been, a measure of the importance of the person. Hundreds if not thousands of people, houses, and other objects have their own category. If this is your reason for objecting to this category, why do you not object to all the other single-item categories? I fail to understand why you single this brave American hero out. But, his being a brave American hero has nothing to do with it at all. Categorization is designed for type, not necessarily quantity. For myself I find it most convenient in cases such as this to standardize the name by putting it in a category. Other pictures may well turn up. He is a subcategory of other categories as well. It is just easier to fit the category into different subcategory schemes than it is the photo. However, these reasons do not seem to be your concern. You seem to feel that only persons you as an administrator think are important can have their own category. I do not believe that is Commons policy. May we begin by your stating why as administrator you think it is? Do not hesitate to reference the appropriate policy. Thank you.Botteville (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Oh! I forgot to mention. Important in my decision is the fact that these names in the "people from" set of categories appear also at the county and state level as well as in other subcategories. Many of these use alphabetic lists. The subcat alphabetizes really well; the pic name does not. That is why I use subcat names to standardize. But, as you stated it, this is not the issue! Unless you care to restate the issue, it is the importance of the person. I look forward to hearing the reasons for this value system or else a retraction of the question. I welcome other views of course, but I do not see this as an issue or as needing to be fixed. Thank you.Botteville (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Excuse me ... (one more time) I looked up the list under which this picture originally appeared, and what do you think I found? Numerous categories without any pictures at all, and several categories with only one picture. So, these circumstances impell me to retiterate, why do you single out THIS picture? Considering that you have been an administrator for some years and ought to have reasons for what you do, I think you owe an answer. Thanks.Botteville (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cause I orientate myself on en:WP notability and never saw lower ranks to relevant expect when they had some media attention. But I checked him on google and didn't found anything which would make him notable.--Sanandros (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- en:Wikipedia:Notability is not really applicable on commons as notability cannot be really checked and depends very much on the context/scope of a particular wikipedia; if it concerns a small wikipedia language group in the forests that has only one million speakers, the rules for notability might be completely different and unverifiable. While I support the logic of Botteville, a soldier that happens to be referenced on a military photo is a bridge too far. There are little or no chances that we will ever see more pictures or an article on that person. I guess that we could distil easily tens of thousands of categories of the military images, none of them really relevant for our client wikipedias. And I guess that chances are low that even his mother would recognise that person. --Foroa (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm glad you agree with my logic, which is, as you say, that notability does not apply. Now let's consider your logic. The gist of your argument is - correct me if I misstate - that specific subcategories should not be assigned to persons for whom in your opinion no articles are likely to be written or other photos be downloaded. Again, there is not, and never has been, any such policy on Commons. This view is strictly your opinion, which means that the two of you are trying to "pull rank" on me; that is, you are trying to force your judgement over my judgement on no other grounds than that it is yours. That is not WM policy, whether Commons or WP. My judgement should have equal weight with yours no matter what your rank on WM, short of James Wales. But Wales has a non-interference policy except in matters he deems it necessary to interfere. I think a brief review of the history of the matter is relevant. While looking for persons from Amesbury in the photos I found Day's. Day is from Amesbury, which means he also has to be from Massachusetts. ANY person from Amesbury and Massachusetts is qualified to go in those categories! I have found lots of people far less notable and far less frequent or likely to appear in an article. My main reason for creating this category is that Day appears in lists, such as "People from Massachusetts." He could not appear in lists without being in that subcategory! So, if you don't mind, while I find your personal opinions interesting, please address the utility of the category, or let it go by default. YOUR arguments - notability, frequency, probability of being used, seem to me NOT to concern categorization, but presence in the first place. I did not load this picture, I found it loaded. If you don't like it you should nominate it for deletion. All loaded pictures must have categories. If we do not allow this categorization, the picture will be hanging around various categories with only its original unsuitable category, a list. It will be a loose end never able to be cleaned up. Now for your other irrelevant arguments: Not even his mother would recognize him? Give me a break. He might say the same about you. So would my mother, but she's long gone, so we'll never know. For the rest, what are you saying, we are going to load tons of military pictures and not categorize them, or place them under one humungous category? But, WM WANTS these pictures categorized! Your interference in this matter is not according to policy and crosses the line in my opinion into personal domination. I might add as a note, if you personally do not like the American military, you may not let it influence you and still be neutral. I believe neutrality applies to both houses.Botteville (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- en:Wikipedia:Notability is not really applicable on commons as notability cannot be really checked and depends very much on the context/scope of a particular wikipedia; if it concerns a small wikipedia language group in the forests that has only one million speakers, the rules for notability might be completely different and unverifiable. While I support the logic of Botteville, a soldier that happens to be referenced on a military photo is a bridge too far. There are little or no chances that we will ever see more pictures or an article on that person. I guess that we could distil easily tens of thousands of categories of the military images, none of them really relevant for our client wikipedias. And I guess that chances are low that even his mother would recognise that person. --Foroa (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cause I orientate myself on en:WP notability and never saw lower ranks to relevant expect when they had some media attention. But I checked him on google and didn't found anything which would make him notable.--Sanandros (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete There are two reasonable rationales for a personal category for an individual. 1) Notable person likely to have additional photos in the future 2) Many existing photos of the individual, regardless of notability. People sometimes argue over which of these reasons is legitimate, but in this case, the individual meets neither requirement. Placing this one image of Earl M. Day in a category or placing one category called "Earl M. Day" in a category makes precisely no difference to category size, so this is not helpful in any respect. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
No response in months. The person is not notable. There is only one photo in the category. Given these two facts, there is no reason to have a category for this individual. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
|
This category contains a lot of vessels, that also are categorised under Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom. Also Category:Royal Navy ships itself is categorised in Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom. This is not according the convention. A clear definition to make it possible to devide this ships in two different categories, understandable for not-specialists, is not given. Besides: The Netherlands and a few other countries also have a Royal Navy, with Royal Navy ships. Not so usefull to add e.g. the ships in Category:Naval ships of the Netherlands to Category:Royal Navy ships. I don't think it is correct to have two categories for the same British naval ships.
My suggestion is to transfer all ships in Category:Royal Navy ships to Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom. Category:Royal Navy ships then only has categories like: Naval ships of the United Kingdom, Naval ships of the Netherlands, Naval ships of Canada, Naval ships of Australia and so on. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- While I agree that two categories for one purpose is wrong, it does seem that they actually have slightly different objectives. Category:Royal Navy ships "include ships commissioned into Royal Navy service", whereas Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom "include naval ships designed, built, or operated in or by the United Kingdom". As I see it the latter is more inclusive than the former. The instructions for moving are here (they look somewhat like a policy in fact) and the place to discuss it is here. In kind regards, heb
- "Ships of <country>" are vessels with the flag of a given country. For ships built in a given country, there is "Ships built in <country>". -- Docu at 05:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ssh, its not polite to mention it, but for while we were a republic, the Protectorate had a rather significant navy. Also at various times the army has owned and operated ships, and our air force too has been an operater of armed watercraft, mostly small, but some big enough to be ships.--KTo288 (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- How about as a compromise creating Category:Ships of the British Royal Navy.--KTo288 (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- For me (being a Dutchman) it is very difficult to see what we gain with this suggestion. I opt for a clear, simple system. To follow for users not specialist. For me images with a navy subject have more accent of navy personnel. For images with just ships I prefer categories with naval ships by country. The individual ships in Categories:Naval ships by country by name. (I have to transfer a lot of Dutch ships to such a category, but that is no problem.) --Stunteltje (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- How about as a compromise creating Category:Ships of the British Royal Navy.--KTo288 (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ssh, its not polite to mention it, but for while we were a republic, the Protectorate had a rather significant navy. Also at various times the army has owned and operated ships, and our air force too has been an operater of armed watercraft, mostly small, but some big enough to be ships.--KTo288 (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Ships of <country>" are vessels with the flag of a given country. For ships built in a given country, there is "Ships built in <country>". -- Docu at 05:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Merged. Retaining the category as a redirect, of course. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
In the UK, Public houses and Inns are effectively indistinguishable and the majority of "Inns" would be considered pubs. As a result, I propose a merge to Category:Pubs in the United Kingdom, and all location subcats to the equivalent pub cat. This provides a more useful end result to users, and saves us having to make an awkward distinction. If only an inn offers accommodation, then this suggests making inns a subcat of pubs. However as time passes the businesses may stop/start providing beds, but the building stays the same - so is that distinction helpful to anyone? Its also hard to determine if a pub is an inn or not: A modern pub might call itself an "Inn" simply because it sounds historical. Many pubs not called "Inn" offer beds. Nilfanion (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'd support this. I wasn't sure whether the difference was that Inns offered beds, food or fresh horses for stage coaches, but the first two of those have long ceased to be a distinction and sadly very few Inns can even offer stabling these days, let alone a fresh and well trained set of carriage horses. On a related note, should we also merge in bars? WereSpielChequers (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am less sure about supporting a merge. Most inns and public houses are distinguished by the name and you can find an index of historic inns in London at "Inns And Taverns Of Old London", 1909; certainly where a building has historic status as an inn, this should be recognized by Commons as the building type. Even if the inn is now publicly listed as a pub and may no longer offer accommodation, there seems little harm in it persisting in both inn and pub categories. Though an inn is often used as a term for a public house (particularly in the country), they are mostly distinguishable by being called an inn or including an offer of accommodation. The term is not archaic, as can be shown by this modern index AA the B&B Guide which included a large number of named inns offering B&B. --Fæ (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes the term "inn" is certainly used - the trouble is defining it in a way that makes a useful distinction. A village public house may or may not offer B&B, and this has little or no relation as to its name or its historical status: If its called "(something) Inn" or another typical pub name. Over time, accommodation services tend to be withdrawn too. This means neither the name, nor provision of accommodation, are as helpful as it could be for distinguishing. More practically: What should be done about a classic Inn: One that is a historic inn, called an inn, has always offered inn services? Even then it probably should still be listed as a pub, the regular patrons will consider it their local pub and it will have a pub sign outside the front door...--Nilfanion (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- To some extent merger is merely recognising the inevitable. I've just gone through the Inns in UK and started on Inns in England moving them down to the county level, only to discover that Berkshire was redirected to Pubs in Berkshire two years ago, and many individual buildings have some images in pub and some in Inn categories. One of the purposes of categorisation is to bring identical or near identical things together, with our current categorisation resources we don't have the ability to differentiate between Pubs and Inns. WereSpielChequers (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support merge as the distinction has been lost in the vagaries of language, if further subcats were needed it could be done by describing the distinguishing feature, EG Category:Pubs that offer B&B in Essex, Category:Pubs using the name inn in Essex, Category:Historic inns in London stc. Oxyman (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- merge "Inn" is no more than a trivial aspect of some names. There is no defining characteristic that separates them, there is no practical way for categorizors to tell them apart. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Merged. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
At least for the Austrians, Germans and Swiss in this category the categorization is wrong, since "Kabarett" in German means "political satire" rather than "cabaret" (see en:Kabarett vs. en:Cabaret). So these people are comedians or satirists, but not at all cabaret performers. I think it would be best to reestablish the category Kabarett and categorize them with it. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- What is the German equivalent for cabaret ? Revue is not really the same. --Foroa (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Quite often "Cabaret" is used instead of "Kabarett". --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is Category:Political cabaret. I guess most German-speaking "Kabarettisten" would fit there. --rimshottalk 18:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- So Kabarett is a subset/specialisation of Cabaret. Would the creation of a "political cabaret by country" not be the more generic solution, as comparable things exist in other countries, such as en:Capitol Steps, but it might be difficult to distinguish them from satirists and comedians. --Foroa (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- No - "Kabarett" is "political satire", which is no subset of "cabaret", "political cabaret" is also no subset of "cabaret" (Is it a valid category at all? I mean: Is this term used at all in English? It seems to be a germanism for me.) --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at web search results, I see "political cabaret" being used a fair number of times, although I hadn't come across the term before. It may not be a common term, but it seems readily understandable, so I don't see a real problem with Category:Political cabaret. It is also more specific than "political satire", which would cover a range of media (e.g. written satire, cartoons, and so on), many of which have no live performance aspect. --Avenue (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- No - "Kabarett" is "political satire", which is no subset of "cabaret", "political cabaret" is also no subset of "cabaret" (Is it a valid category at all? I mean: Is this term used at all in English? It seems to be a germanism for me.) --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- So Kabarett is a subset/specialisation of Cabaret. Would the creation of a "political cabaret by country" not be the more generic solution, as comparable things exist in other countries, such as en:Capitol Steps, but it might be difficult to distinguish them from satirists and comedians. --Foroa (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me that if English wikipedia can host en:Kabarett, that's a perfectly good justification for hosting a distinct Category:Kabarett here at commons. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Er, there is no universality principle on the English Wikipedia … (Unsure if it's avoidable or not to use "Kabarett" here, but this is not the kind of decision that should be made based on an encyclopedia's naming conventions). FDMS 4 15:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, unlike Commons, wikipedia prioritizes the most common name in English. If it's called Kabarett in German and Kabarett in English, I'd say the closest "universal" word we can use is Kabarett. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia prioritises the most common name of the specific article topic – for example, an article about apples in Timbuktu would have the term most commonly used by (English-language) Timbuktu-related sources to refer to apples as its page title, not the term most commonly used globally to do so. FDMS 4 18:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, unlike Commons, wikipedia prioritizes the most common name in English. If it's called Kabarett in German and Kabarett in English, I'd say the closest "universal" word we can use is Kabarett. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Er, there is no universality principle on the English Wikipedia … (Unsure if it's avoidable or not to use "Kabarett" here, but this is not the kind of decision that should be made based on an encyclopedia's naming conventions). FDMS 4 15:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Right, but if most English-language writing about Kabarett uses the word "Kabarett" and most German-language writing about Kabarett uses the word "Kabarett", you really think there's going to be another word more commonly used globally? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- The question is whether or not what is considered Kabarett when performed in the DACH region would also be described as Kabarett when performed elsewhere or if Kabarett is just a DACH-specific term. After all, political cabaret/satire exists in other parts of the world as well. FDMS 4 18:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know what "Kabarett" refers to in German. de:Kabarett links to en:Kabarett. But on the other hand, dewiki has no article to link with en:Cabaret. Does that mean the term "Kabarett" is also used for Cabaret as found elsewhere? Note that de:Kategorie:Kabarett links to en:Category:Cabaret and Category:Cabaret, which supports that view. The article de:Kabarett also seems to encompass multiple uses with Deutschland as a big subsection. --ghouston (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: Kabarett in German is not the same as "cabaret" in English. "Political cabaret" exists, categories "Kabarett in Germany" and "Kabarett in Switzerland" have been added to it. Kabarett-related things should move to one of those categories. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The categorization of these people is wrong, since "Kabarett" in German means "political satire" rather than "cabaret" (see en:Kabarett vs. en:Cabaret). So these people are comedians or satirists, but not at all cabaret performers. I think it would be best to put them in new categories Kabarett in Austria, Kabarett in Germany and Kabarett in Switzerland. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- @Reinhard Kraasch; ich habe mal die «Kategorie für Kabarett in der Schweiz» erstellt. Ich hoffe, dass dies in deinem Sinn ist. Nun habe ich aber gemerkt; es könnte in Konflikt mit der Category:Comedians from Switzerland stehen. Gruss --Schofför (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ist ja heute schwer abzugrenzen, echte Kabarettisten gibt es ja nicht mehr viele... --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Done: @Reinhard Kraasch: No one objected, and this sounds sensible to me. This category should only contain "cabaret" things, not "Kabarett". --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)