Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2013/01
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 January 2013
This category should possibly be renamed to Enterprise (ride). Many non-ride items get categorized in here. Mjrmtg (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Cleaned and moved mostly to correct categories. Volunteer needed to organise the many "Hand in Hand" or HiH related images, mainly related to category:Microfinance and micro-enterprises, into proper categories. --Foroa (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Enterprise (ride). --rimshottalk 12:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I mistakenly created this category with a misspelling. Category with correct spelling can be found at Category:Quirin Oettl. Please delete this page as it was created (by me) in error. Thank you Crakkerjakk (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Quirin Oettl. --rimshottalk 19:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Please excuse. I have created a new category with the name "Vorderer Orient Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe", because this name is more useful. And I have transfered the one file to the new category. ArishG (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Vorderer Orient Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe. --rimshottalk 19:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
This empty category can be deleted. Correct category name is Bahnhof Coswig (Dresden). KilianPaulUlrich (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- If it's empty and is simply a bad name for something that is somewhere else, no discussion is needed, just delete. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Bahnhof Coswig (Dresden). --rimshottalk 23:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete: Empty category, which will remain empty: there is not and never has been a distinctive design for the seal of the President of Greece, other than the generic seal pattern which is the same for almost all state institutions. Constantine ✍ 14:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- So just delete the empty category, this doesn't need discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 19:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 23:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Milówka_train_station Therud (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
moved to Category:Milówka train station. --rimshottalk 23:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
no files since 2009, there aren't any, see User talk:Thorvaldsson#Category:Paintings by Watteau in the Galerie Cailleux Oursana (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC) the redirecting Category:Paintings by Watteau in the Cailleux Collection should also be deleted–—Oursana (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 10:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, it isn't needed Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 23:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, it isn't needed Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 23:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
empty category, should be deleted, because it is replaced by Category:Last Judgment by Lucas van Leyden Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Last Judgment by Lucas van Leyden. --rimshottalk 12:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It should be deleted, all images has been moved to Category:Coco Johnsen, her correct name. Yanguas (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Coco Johnsen. --rimshottalk 00:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
This should be named “Cathedral sections” like other subcats in Category:Architectural sections. Anyway, I guess this is a duplicate of Category:Church sections and therefor redundant. Mapmarks (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 00:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect name, please delete. Maksim Sidorov 11:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Kritzinger's electric locomotives (Lowercase "electric") - speedy deletion requested André Kritzinger (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. In the future, for speedy deletion, you can use {{Badname}}. --rimshottalk 23:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Please delete, my fault should have been LX-N20000 Jwh (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:LX-N20000 (aircraft). --rimshottalk 23:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong name... Jwh (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
another one with a wrong name - not my day today... Jwh (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
This was listed at speedy deletions for over a month with the reason "images do not match with the category name at all" and nobody deleted it, so I guess nobody is sure if the reason is right or not, neither do I. I do feel that the name is wrong as the files probably haven't something to do with spectroscopy, but before deleting we should know for sure. So because of the doubt I list it here. Badseed talk 01:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with deletion and have emptied the category. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC).
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 00:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 23:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
empty, doesnt appear to be of any use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah I think you can delete it. I think I may have created that one myself, but I have since replaced its function, mostly with the Comics creators by occupation subcategories. Nightscream (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 23:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Misnamed, this was meant to be for road signs, and I've moved the items in it to a more appropriately named category. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I dispute the move. Category:Mountain ranges of Tyrol covers mountain ranges which occupy territory on both sides of the border. Moving them to a category which solely covers mountain ranges of the Austrian state of Tyrol is thus factually wrong. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I thint te move is correct. This category contains only content of Tyrol (state) in german: Tirol (Bundesland). There is a big difference between Category:Tyrol and Category:Tyrol (state) and Category:South Tyrol. I know it's a bit complicated wit Tyrol. I am very familiar with the geography of Tyrol.--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- upss... Gun Powder Ma has rigt, my error: sorry.
imho: Discussion can be closed--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I dispute the move. Category:Mountains of Tyrol covers mountains which occupy territory on both sides of the border. Moving them to a category which solely covers mountains of the Austrian state of Tyrol is thus factually wrong. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think te move is correct. This category contains only content of Tyrol (state) in german: Tirol (Bundesland). There is a big difference between Category:Tyrol and Category:Tyrol (state) and Category:South Tyrol. I know it's a bit complicated wit Tyrol. I am very familiar with the geography of Tyrol.--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- This discussion should happen at Commons:Categories_for_discussion, please move it there. --Nemo 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Nemo: done--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- upss... Gun Powder Ma has rigt, my error: sorry.
- This discussion should happen at Commons:Categories_for_discussion, please move it there. --Nemo 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
imho: Discussion can be closed--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete
Parent categories are Category:Mountains of Austria, Category:Geography of Tyrol, Category:Mountain ranges of Tyrol (state), all only Austrian related.
Almost all mountains listed in the category are located in Tyrol (state). There are some mountains miscategorized or do have wrong coordinates, a few in South Tyrol (~4), one in Isreal and some at 0°/0°. I will fix those. So this is not the point. There is Category:Mountains of South Tyrol for the other part of Tyrol. In general (and also in this case) subcategories are created following contemporary administrative borders. We should not make an exception here. Everything from Category:Mountains of Tyrol should be moved to Category:Mountains of Tyrol (state). Either make Category:Mountains of Tyrol just contain 2 subcats Category:Mountains of Tyrol (state) and Category:Mountains of South Tyrol (and nothing else), or delete the cat Category:Mountains of Tyrol. Make it a child cat of Category:Tyrol.
Alternatively Category:Mountains of Tyrol could be redirected to Category:Mountains of Tyrol (state), but I fear Gun Powder Ma will not like this. Anyhow, it is an asymmetric solution.
To sum up, I propose to make all categories related to Tyrol (state) and named Category:XXX of Tyrol empty. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Proposal: Move all images from Category:Mountains of Tyrol to Category:Mountains of Tyrol (state)?--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why was the parallel discussion on the move of the Mountain ranges of Tyrol speedily closed and its categories again removed? The problem is the same for both categories, mountain ranges and mountains. Until we have found a solution for both categories, this unilateral move remains disputed.
- Herzi Pinki, geography is the point. There are a several dozen mountains which lie on both Tyrolean and South Tyrolean territory. The categories of these mountains are usually introduced by the phrase "...a mountain...on the border between Tyrol and South Tyrol" (cf. Category:Schneespitze). It is a common occurence that political borders runs across summits or at least include parts of the mountain massif. For this reason the Mount Everest is subsumed under both Category:Mountains of China and Category:Mountains of Nepal. So, there are two solutions: we either keep Category:Mountains of Tyrol for these border zone mountains or we categorize all its members with both Category:Mountains of Tyrol (state) and Category:Mountains of South Tyrol. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well , I didn't get who moved what where, but I guess it's a more natural and comprehensible choice to put the bordering mountains into two categories instead of making up a third category for these cases.
- Hence, I'd propose to adopt the following system:
- Mountains in the state of Tyrol are put into the Category:Mountains of Tyrol (state).
- Mountains in South Tyrol are put into the Category:Mountains of South Tyrol.
- Border zone mountains are put into both categories.
- Category:Mountains of Tyrol sould become a disambiguation page like Category:Selva.
- The same procedure applies to Category:Mountain ranges of Tyrol. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- (ec) Agree with Gun Powder Ma; political divisions don't work well with geographic ones. See category:Alps. --Foroa (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Fine, then. Seems we have a consensus to which all of us agree. Mai-Sachme explained it best how to proceed. Any disagreements? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Support good idea--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- You think you could undertake the categorization, Steinsplitter? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- :) gerat! I Move Categry:Mountains of Tyrole in Category:Mountains of Tyrole (state) and crat a disambiguation page at Mountains of Tyrol. The same from Category:Mountain ranges of Tyrol. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- You think you could undertake the categorization, Steinsplitter? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- done?-- Steinsplitter (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- The job seems done. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Done and dusted --moogsi·(blah) 19:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Empty category, Pinnacles National Monument is now Pinnacles National Park as of 10 January 2013 Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I redesignated the files in the category to Category:Pinnacles National Park to reflect the national park status before nominating the category for deletion: apologies for apparently doing that prematurely. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- And I reverted my changes for the time being. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems like this would be fine as a redirect // moogsi(blah) 13:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Still a redirect and that seems fine --moogsi (blah) 01:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Can be deleted, empty category LeeGer (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, it can not be deleted. We provisioned all the Gemeentelijke monumenten categories so it's easy to sort them out. Please don't nominate them for deletion, thank you. Multichill (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- And it's no longer empty. Can we just close this discussion & keep? - Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Not an empty category any more, no other reason proposed for deletion --moogsi·(blah) 20:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
This name is ambiguous, it is too easy to assume this category is for the more well known Category:Navy Cross (United States). I suggest it be renamed Category:Navy Cross (Estonia). Geo Swan (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Should certainly be renamed as suggested, and I can't think why this needs any discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 19:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Renamed --moogsi·(blah) 10:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I dont think the category would ever host media files related to the actual incident. The category Category:Demonstrations and protests against the Delhi gang rape case sounds more appropriate and inline with other such Category:Demonstrations and protests in India. Hence requesting deletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, this catagory is now useless. It should be recreated if we have photos of the victim or the bus. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- +1 --Nicor (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted' Yann (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Empty after removing its only entry from this category (did not match). What is a nipple dress? Torsch (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Empty category. What is a nipple dress? Torsch (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Your guess is as good as anyone's...
- A dress that covers everything except the nipples?
- A nippleprint dress?
- A dress made of nipples?
- A dress made of nipples?
- Who knows... my guess would be that it's not a single dress but the mass noun sense of "dress", i.e. "apparel", in which case the intended meaning could be pasties. // moogsi(blah) 16:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The plant has been renamed to Ficinia spiralis in 2010 See the New Zealand flora database for a ref. -- Alan Liefting (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes change Category to Category:Ficinia spiralis --BotBln (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Move content to Category:Ficinia spiralis and make this a redirect --moogsi (blah) 01:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Redirected, to Category:Ficinia spiralis. --rimshottalk 07:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
s/b renamed Wisconsin Avenue, Washington D.C. - it isn't the only Wisconsin Avenue Mjrmtg (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Contents were moved to Category:Wisconsin Avenue (Washington, D.C.). This is probably the only *famous* Wisconsin Avenue but there are lots of other streets with this name and it's usually wise to disambiguate cat names on Commons even if there is only one article w:Wisconsin Avenue // moogsi(blah) 07:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Renamed // moogsi(blah) 11:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The category is empty and it will ALWAYS be, because this IMO number is false/impossible (it's not self-consistent because its checksum is wrong). It's also a misleading category: the false number is being mistakenly assigned to a Navy ship (Military vessels do not have IMO numbers) Windroff (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Generally used to refer to a specific ship. Not all IMO checksums validate. -- Docu at 19:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of your "not all IMO checksums validate" claim. Windroff (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Check the category. -- Docu at 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the dozens of false IMO numbers in the "Ships by IMO Number" Cat? Windroff (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, I was just refering to does in the related category. What do you mean with "dozens of false IMO numbers"? -- Docu at 03:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- There's an index called "IMO checksum failed" full with false IMO numbers. IMO database engines can't look them up, returning either "invalid IMO number" or "no ship found" instead. Windroff (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's a category I built. What do you mean with IMO database engines? -- Docu at 03:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- There's an index called "IMO checksum failed" full with false IMO numbers. IMO database engines can't look them up, returning either "invalid IMO number" or "no ship found" instead. Windroff (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, I was just refering to does in the related category. What do you mean with "dozens of false IMO numbers"? -- Docu at 03:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the dozens of false IMO numbers in the "Ships by IMO Number" Cat? Windroff (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Check the category. -- Docu at 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- After all that exchange User:Docu has failed to provide any proof for his claim that "not all IMO checksums validate". There are 70 categories for false IMO numbers (the ones failing their respective checksums). Because they are false, they are not accepted by the ship database engines (you can check this for yourselves), so they are useless for ship identification. This is just one of them. Windroff (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Shiplist.net is just a website like others. If it says "ship not found", this is equivalent to Commons not returning any results for most IMO numbers. If you read the introduction at Category:Ships by IMO number, you will probably understand why some the subcategories don't validate.
None if this is particularly relevant to this discussion though. If people look for "IMO 6125398", we just need to make sure that are pointed to the ship this may refer to and that they are aware that this number is not an official one. -- Docu at 05:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Database misses in Shiplist.net and Commons are not equivalent: ShipList.com is exclusively dedicated to vessels and uses an automatically generated database from primary sources; Commons is a wikipedia-based storage site maintained by volunteers mostly from secondary sources and as such it's error-prone. Other automatically generated databases like imonumber.com, shiptracking.eu, vesselfinder.com don't accept false IMO numbers either: all of them return "ship not found" or "invalid IMO number" for checksum-failing numbers.
- IMO numbers are emitted by a single source: IHS Fairplay (previously LLoyd's Register Fairplay), so all IMO numbers are "official". By definition they validate themselves by checksum. Those which don't are not IMO numbers, they are either made up numbers or typos.
- You can't just use false IMO numbers as categories without clearly stating their falseness; you can't even call them "IMO" because they are not: wikipedia is not entitled to lie. Pointing to a clarification note is a bad choice: readers may never get there. Windroff (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I understand that you seem to feel very deeply about the "La Libertad" issue, but if there are issues with Wikipedia, please use use the talk pages of the associated articles there. They may ask you for references for your various statements though. -- Docu at 07:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Let this discussion stay in focus and consider just the problem as it is, without appealing to motives. Issues with IMO numbers in the ship articles can be solved quickly by just correcting the number there; it's fixing the categories named after false numbers which is burdensome, since renaming/deleting them requires a lengthy discussion. So special care should be kept when creating these categories.
- A category under a false IMO number is simply misinformation. Wikipedia has some credibility because up to some extent it is assumed to be peer reviewed, so accepting false IMO numbers as a methodology ends up creating confusion and propagating mistakes: an IMO number typo is made in one web page, someone copies it to wikipedia, then the error is everywhere.
- If these fake numbers must be kept anyhow to ease searching, then every IMO number category failing the checksum test should be renamed to something like "IMO xxxxxxx (Invalid)". This would make finding false IMO numbers easy while making also immediately clear that the number does not exist. Windroff (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- I understand that you seem to feel very deeply about the "La Libertad" issue, but if there are issues with Wikipedia, please use use the talk pages of the associated articles there. They may ask you for references for your various statements though. -- Docu at 07:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Shiplist.net is just a website like others. If it says "ship not found", this is equivalent to Commons not returning any results for most IMO numbers. If you read the introduction at Category:Ships by IMO number, you will probably understand why some the subcategories don't validate.
- I see the point Windroff is making as being made in the light of the legal case against the ship. Here on Commons we just make it users as easy as possible to find images of ships. It has nothing to do with the legal case. If someone is looking for a ship that in the past used an IMO number (even wrong, of false) he/she finds the images of that ship here on Commons with that number. Strong support for the solution of User:Docu. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- So you are willing to keep this empty category indefinitely, waiting for the extremely unlikely chance of someone making just one particular typo among millions of possible combinations so finally it ends up containing a misidentified ship? This is against wikipedia rules for categories, see Criteria for speedy deletion of categories C1. Windroff (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete Now to this case: this category is empty. No known ship had, has nor will ever have this fake IMO number. Most likely it will be empty forever, since the chance of someone making this number up among millions of possible combinations is negligible.
It should be speedy deleted in accordance with Criteria for speedy deletion of categories C1. There's no excuse to keep this. Windroff (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep As reason given: to support information. The business of Wikipedia. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- So far you have given no "reason". Publishing false data is not "supporting information". The "business of Wikipedia" mandates obeying its rules, so I repeat my question to you:
- Are you willing to keep this empty category indefinitely, waiting for the extremely unlikely chance of someone making just one particular typo among millions of possible combinations so finally it ends up containing a misidentified ship? This is against wikipedia rules for categories, see Criteria for speedy deletion of categories C1. Windroff (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- You gave the right reason. I am not - in Dutch - a "letterknecht" and support the easy use of finding information. If someone looks for images of "IMO 6125398" they can be found this way. That is where the category was intended for (look for the history, I opened it). Ad hominem. By the way: I realy wonder why you insist. Are you a legal officer of Argentina? Your only "contributions" are this issue --Stunteltje (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- If I gave the right answer, as you say, then you should vote for the removal. I showed that there's no "information" here. Besides it's not even practical to keep this fake number: Libertad is not an average, "anonymous" service vessel but a highly famous one. People looking for her will search by name, not by an obscure lengthy false number. Windroff (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please answer the question Ad hominem. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- If I gave the right answer, as you say, then you should vote for the removal. I showed that there's no "information" here. Besides it's not even practical to keep this fake number: Libertad is not an average, "anonymous" service vessel but a highly famous one. People looking for her will search by name, not by an obscure lengthy false number. Windroff (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- IMHO, we can re-added Libertad to the category. What they do or don't do at English language Wikipedia isn't relevant to this discussion at Wikimedia Commons. -- Docu at 09:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Don't start to go in circles: no wikipedia sub site is entitled to lie or spread false information. This is not a place to collect external mistakes, much less to use them as global categorization method. Windroff (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- You gave the right reason. I am not - in Dutch - a "letterknecht" and support the easy use of finding information. If someone looks for images of "IMO 6125398" they can be found this way. That is where the category was intended for (look for the history, I opened it). Ad hominem. By the way: I realy wonder why you insist. Are you a legal officer of Argentina? Your only "contributions" are this issue --Stunteltje (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Are there any issues with the description at Category:IMO 6125398 that would need editing? -- Docu at 07:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
OK From the category description: "IMO number 6125398 is not allocated. [1]". The sentence seems to be supported by the reference Windroff provided. -- Docu at 09:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
OK From the category description: "Sometimes the Argentine school vessel Libertad was identified with this number. [2]". This seems to be supported by the reference Windroff provided and the declaration of Argentine ambassador Castro mentioned at [[3]. The talk page at Wikipedia about the ship mentions also other cases where the number was used with reference to Libertad. -- Docu at 09:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Not OK From the category description: "6125398 is not a valid IMO number, as it is not constructed according to the IMO number specification nor was issued by the IMO number emission authority, IHS Fairplay (previously LLoyd's Register Fairplay)". I removed this as no reference was provided. -- Docu at 09:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Not OK Windroff added "Contrary to common belief, IMO numbers do not play any role in Argentina-Ghana contentious issue over ARA Libertad as Ghana never cast any doubt about the military role of the vessel". It seems that Argentine ambassador Castro disagrees with Windroff .. as an article about Castro mentions the IMO 6125398 number .. [4]. I prefer my previous summary, but I don't mind if we remove the reference to the Ghana incident entirely. In any case, this sentence would need to go. -- Docu at 09:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty. Can be recreated in needed. Yann (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
"Healing of a bleeding women" is not English. "Healing of a bleeding woman" would be. In the literature this woman is often called "the woman with an issue of blood" or (among art historians) "the Haemorrhoissa". Either of those would be preferable. Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- This makes sense. Google seems to think "the woman with the issue of blood" is more common. As we're categorizing media here, the most common titles for artistic visions of the event would make sense, so having
- (The) Woman with the Issue of Blood
- (The) Woman with an Issue of Blood (redirect if it seems necessary)
- The Haemorrhoissa (redirect)
- would be better. Cf. other standard New Testament subjects under Category:Life and teachings of Jesus Christ, e.g. Category:Descent from the Cross // moogsi(blah) 08:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
We do not need this category only to put in ..by museum, and there are not many paintings. ..by museum has not to be searched in this cat. Oursana (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted --moogsi (blah) 14:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Emptyness. Sammyday (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It has an image in it which is properly categorized. Michael Barera (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- At last.--Sammyday (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
no more emptiness --moogsi (blah) 01:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Emptiness. Sammyday (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC).
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 00:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Quiznos and Subway should be Sandwich Restaurants in the United States, not Sandwiches of the United States Mjrmtg (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Then move them. I don't see why the category itself needs discussion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK then, didn't know if there was a reason why they were listed as Sandwiches of the United States. Maybe someone had a reason. :) --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Resolved--KTo288 (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
empty, and given the copyright status of the subject, will likely remain empty forever. best to delete it. Liliana-60 (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Agree, seems pretty clear // moogsi(blah) 09:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Denmark - Albania, 1 April 2009. Froztbyte (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be the same as Category:Iglesia del Sagrario, Seville. Leyo 22:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Content was merged --moogsi (blah) 15:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Category should be renamed to "Alumni of the University of Mumbai". U should be capital as its is a proper noun here and not common noun. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree --Foroa (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Renamed --moogsi (blah) 16:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Should be Wuppertal (not Wupperal) : Category:Travel agencies in Wuppertal Jwh (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
disappeared --moogsi (blah) 01:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
(Moved to Category:Travel_agencies_in_Wuppertal. --rimshottalk 07:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC))
Replaced by Category:Association football scarves of Tunisia. Froztbyte (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
gone --moogsi (blah) 01:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of category:Disease incidence maps of Europe WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
vanished --moogsi (blah) 01:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Disease incidence maps of the United Kingdom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
no longer existent --moogsi (blah) 01:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
not there any more --moogsi (blah) 01:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Players of Dalum IF. Froztbyte (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Players of Dalum IF. --rimshottalk 20:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Empty Category יעל י (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Typographic error. The Person is called "Andrey Sidelnikov", the correct category exists. Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Andrey Sidelnikov. --rimshottalk 20:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Move to Category:Blackberry (company). It is no longer known as RIM. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Non-controversial. The various Wikipedia projects mostly seemed to have moved their articles to the Blackberry name, so our category should also reflect the current branding.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete, screwed up the name, already duplicated. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name, empty. --rimshottalk 20:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Joakim Mattsson. Froztbyte (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Seems ok as a redirect.. someone already mistyped it as "Mattson" once, right? --moogsi (blah) 01:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Redirected moogsi (blah) 23:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It strikes me as a problematic/confusing basis for a category structure, but perhaps someone could elucidate. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, mixing political divisions with religious ones is asking for problems. Is Turkey becoming Islamic ? Anyway, purely from the categorisation point of view; if there is no proper parent category tree, then it makes no sense to make a child category tree. --Foroa (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Absence of an adequate definition of "Islamic countries" will make this category difficult to use in practice. – Wdchk (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Too difficult to know what an "Islamic country" is. File:Islam World.svg shows the different ways you could define a country as Islamic. I don't think it's a very useful distinction --moogsi (blah) 02:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Done - It's been almost 4 weeks, no one has objected, so I have gone ahead and deleted the category. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Should be deleted. It's empty. Her biography has been deleted twice at the en:Wikipedia Yanguas (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted moogsi (blah) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
s/b renamed Connecticut Avenue, Washington D.C. - it is not the only Connecticut Avenue Mjrmtg (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. With rare exceptions, categories for streets should generally be disambiguated. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Category Connecticut Avenue (Washington, D.C.) created, all photos moved to new category. --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Asymptote diagrams -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 07:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the Category:Created with Asymptote template & category fit better with the general theme of "Created with" categories for other software. Whereas Category:Asymptote diagrams implies all of its sub images are diagrams, this category merely indicates Asymptote generated its sub-images without implying anything about their contents (diagrams, cartoons, figures, etc.) As such, I feel the images in Category:Asymptote diagrams should get merged here. Glosser.ca (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Tag everything in Category:Asymptote diagrams with {{Created with Asymptote}} and delete the category. --moogsi (blah) 21:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Done --moogsi (blah) 20:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Created with Asymptote -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 07:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann, in favour of Category:Created with Asymptote --moogsi (blah) 20:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Porque el nombre es incorrecto. Debería ser denominada: Category:Palace of Laredo Raimundo Pastor (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- The es.wiki article says "También se le denomina Hotel o Palacio Laredo". The record of the building in the register of Bienes de Interés Cultural also names the building this way. I think that's the main reasoning behind the name of this category --moogsi (blah) 19:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support The current name seems to be invented by us then. We should not do this. Call it the palace, & also categorize as a hotel. Johnbod (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is precedent for calling the building this in English.. I don't think it's invented by us. The reason for the name itself is that it was originally a private residence, then a hotel. It's now a research institute and museum. Category:Palace of Laredo seems to make more sense, though. I put a redirect there anyway --moogsi (blah) 13:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Done --moogsi (blah) 17:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I feel like this category could use a more descriptive name... e.g. Category:FCI-registered dog breeds or something. // moogsi(blah) 14:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- maybe Category:Fédération Cynologique Internationale dog breeds?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Better. "FCI" itself is kind of cryptic so expanding it is good --moogsi (blah) 12:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Fédération Cynologique Internationale dog breeds --moogsi (blah) 21:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Evian Thonon Gaillard Football Club. Froztbyte (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Redirected --moogsi (blah) 23:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I moved the two files here to more specific categories and I don't think we need this one. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be more useful to keep this under its former categories:
- and make whatever categories are more specific branch from this one.
- --moogsi (blah) 17:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa --moogsi (blah) 18:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I moved the four photos in this category to Category: Beaches of Santa Cruz, California which is more descriptive. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa --moogsi (blah) 22:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Is this category and its subcats half in French/German or is this an alternative spelling? Does "rallye" mean something different to "rally"? moogsi (blah) 14:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe Category:Rally, I think would be better. --Jorjum (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
"Rallye" and relevant subcats redirected to "Rally" --moogsi (blah) 14:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
For me, all images on this categories show *blue* instead of *violet* eyes. So I would move all images to Category:Blue eyes and delete this category. Torsch (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actual violet eyes are extremely rare and caused by partial albinism. In fact you will have difficulty finding any pictures of them. Deep blue eyes can look violet in a certain light, and that is what's in this category. But they are still blue. The categorization aid chart shows "Violet" as a pink colour, which I think would be more accurately called pink or red eyes, ie the eyes of people with no pigment in their eyes whatsoever, so the only colour is provided by blood vessels. These are less rare, but it's still a pretty rare thing. So
- Move these images to Category:Blue eyes.
- Change the colour chart so it's more consistent.
- I'd say the the term itself is too inconsistent in meaning to have its own category. --moogsi·(blah) 19:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty after moving blue eyes to the correct category. --rimshottalk 20:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Frihes is a nonsense copy of Friedhof Heslach Gerd Leibrock (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Where does "Frihes" appear? --rimshottalk 22:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think that someone has deleted this category or gallery. --Gerd Leibrock (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Does that mean this discussion is done? --rimshottalk 21:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think that someone has deleted this category or gallery. --Gerd Leibrock (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes --Gerd Leibrock (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Closed, original problem has disappeared. --rimshottalk 21:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
empty category Odessey (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have any problem with this staying around. It's properly categorized, represents a real place, and it could conceivably have images in it in the future. --moogsi (blah) 10:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept, not empty anymore. --rimshottalk 20:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There is an article pl: Kolędowanie. For it is created Category: Koleduvane in Poland. Anonymous User: 46.174.26.234 it removes. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- this is not Russia, it can be translate on basic latin language or roman caltholic cutures, tradition .. etc. xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.174.26.234 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- The proposal to rename the article are discussed in en:Talk:Koledari (orthodox carolers) or pl:Dyskusja:Kolędowanie. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- common singing of carols (wspólne kolędowanie) in: Nation and Religion: The Politics of Commemorations in South-East Poland by Juraj Buzalka
- kolędnik m carol singer, (Christmas) caroller or caroler; kolędlować (śpiewać kolędy) to sing (Christmas) carols; (odwiedzać sąsiadów) to go carol singing: in Wielki słownik polsko-angielski, 2004 p. 369
- Koleduvane .... by Лобачев Владимир ???
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.174.26.234 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hello.. what is the specific problem with the name of this category? Please sign your posts using ~~~~, or the discussion is very difficult to follow.
- The name of the article on en.wiki is w:Koledari. The article also uses the term Koledovanie which would appear to be a transliteration of Polish or Slovenian. Koleduvane is a transliteration of Bulgarian. Currently, Commons has no internationalization system for the names of categories, and uses whatever the concept is commonly known as in English. It would seem the parent category would be best called Category:Koledari, and this specific subcategory Category:Koledari in Poland. Thanks // moogsi(blah) 13:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- The word "Koledari" is taken from the original Bulgarian article. This article has been renamed (see bg:Коледуване - Koleduvane). Hence the English article should be renamed "Koleduvane". --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see. It seems the talk page on en.wiki has been lost at some point, so you'll have to forgive my ignorance.
On Google Books, searching for pages written in English containing "Koledari" get over 3 times as many hits as "Koleduvane". It's not scientific but it's at least a suggestion that "Koleduvane" is a less common term in English.In any case it's very regretful that we don't have different languages for the category names yet :( --moogsi (blah) 14:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)- «Koleduvane» (Caroling) – this rite. «Koledari» – are participants of the rite. Article – about the rite. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ah. Well "koleduvane" does seem to be used about as much as "kolędowanie/koledovanie", but really it appears there is no English term for this. Writers tend to use the word of whichever country they happen to be talking about. It seems like something that will have to be solved with redirects for now, unless someone can come up with a compelling reason to use one word over another --moogsi (blah) 18:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- «Koleduvane» (Caroling) – this rite. «Koledari» – are participants of the rite. Article – about the rite. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see. It seems the talk page on en.wiki has been lost at some point, so you'll have to forgive my ignorance.
- The word "Koledari" is taken from the original Bulgarian article. This article has been renamed (see bg:Коледуване - Koleduvane). Hence the English article should be renamed "Koleduvane". --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept as a redirect to Category:Kolędowanie in Poland. --rimshottalk 11:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
All images that have the tag {{PD-USCG}} categorize automatically into Category:PD US Coast Guard, Therefore this category is redundant. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with this... not sure what should done with the subcats, which have some crossover with Category:PD US Coast Guard Auxiliary, added by former template {{PD-USGov-DHS-CGAUX}}. If anything. --moogsi·(blah) 11:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, now empty. --rimshottalk 11:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Useless category Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Extremely unhelpful nomination. Useless how? And Commons has a whole category structure by year, month, etc. Why randomly nominate 4 subcats from among thousands? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept, in use and no reason given why it should be useless. --rimshottalk 11:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Useless category Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept, in use and no reason given why it should be useless. --rimshottalk 11:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Useless category Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept, in use and no reason given why it should be useless. --rimshottalk 11:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Useless category Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Currently used. --Javier ME (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept, in use and no reason given why it should be useless. --rimshottalk 11:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Title makes no sense in English. This should probably be moved to "Leisure fishing". Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'dd rather favor en:Recreational fishing or en:Sport fishing. --Foroa (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Should we have two categories: one for fishing as a hobby/leisure pursuit, the other for fishing as a sport? While both would fall under the fishing parent category, the former would fall within the Outdoor recreation category tree, while the latter would fall under the sports category tree. This would be a good opportunity to do the split. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think that it will difficult to untangle the Category:Angling in a sports and a recreation part because it is basically the same; the sport adds only the competition dimension. --Foroa (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why? We untangled the main cycling category from cycling (sport), which are also basically the same. When the image clearly pertains to the sport, put it in the sport category. But you are correct in that we perhaps do not necessarily need a separate category for leisure fishing (in which case this proposal should perhaps be a deletion rather than a rename).--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think that it will difficult to untangle the Category:Angling in a sports and a recreation part because it is basically the same; the sport adds only the competition dimension. --Foroa (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Should we have two categories: one for fishing as a hobby/leisure pursuit, the other for fishing as a sport? While both would fall under the fishing parent category, the former would fall within the Outdoor recreation category tree, while the latter would fall under the sports category tree. This would be a good opportunity to do the split. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Recreational fishing, which makes more sense, grammatically. --rimshottalk 20:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This category should be deleted, as well all its images. There's no article in Wikipedia using any of them. All images have watermark, they're all a merchandise. Yanguas (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps nominate the images for deletion if you think they don't belong here. If the images aren't there, then deleting the empty category is trivial --moogsi (blah) 00:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept, not empty and a good way of collecting these images. Should the images be deleted, which is unlikely, the category can still be deleted. --rimshottalk 20:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Merge to Category:River Wye Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, up to a point, but there are also categories Category:River Wye, Derbyshire and Category:River Wye, Buckinghamshire. Normally, we'd expect Category:River Wye to be a disambiguation cat but in view of previous discussions here and here, which have stalled, I'd suggest that Category:River Wye should be the disambiguation category and its content, along with that of Category:River Wye (Wales) be merged to Category:River Wye (Severn). There are also similarly named rivers outside the UK, see en:River Wye (disambiguation). Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Rodhullandemu. --Foroa (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I took my life in my hands and did this before this stalls again. It now looks like:
- Category:River Wye (disambiguation)
- Category:River Wye (Severn) (former content of Category:River Wye is here)
- Category:River Wye in Powys (former content of Category:River Wye (Wales) is here, can easily be upmerged or whatever)
- Category:River Wye (Severn) (former content of Category:River Wye is here)
moogsi (blah) 00:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Category:River Wye in Powys should probably be upmerged, there are plenty of pictures of the Welsh Wye in Category:River Wye (Severn)... --moogsi (blah) 00:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Has been moved to Category:River Wye in Powys on 17. Feb. 2013. → closed. --Passerose (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Umbenennen in Weißer Saal. Mit Eszett. Doppel-s ist falsch. 89.182.204.91 13:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ich habe das Doppel-s sowohl im Dateinamen, als auch in der Kategoriebezeichnung verwendet, weil Commons ein internationales Projekt ist und das "ß" noch nicht einmal in allen deutsch sprechenden Ländern benutzt wird. --Rainer Halama (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Dummerweise wurde die Kategorie in den Bildern vom anonymen Nutzer direkt umbenannt, ohne die entsprechende Kategorie zu erzeugen. Grundsätzlich schreibt sich weiß außerhalb der Schweiz schon mit ß, deshalb ist der neue Name in Ordnung und ich habe die entsprechende Kategorie erzeugt. Eigentlich sollten Kategorienamen auf englisch sein, aber ich gehe mal davon aus, dass "Weißer Saal" hier ein Eigenname und nicht zu übersetzen ist. --rimshottalk 18:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Schloss Urach - Weißer Saal as per nom. --rimshottalk 18:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Category:Snow on trees, Category:Snowed-in trees, and Category:Snowy trees are synonymous and would best all be merged into one, at whichever name is most suitable. MPF (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. I think that "Snowy trees" is the one most likely to be easily translated into other languages and thus make the content of the category the most accessible. "Snowed-in trees" (and for that matter its senior category "Snowed-in plants") is too idiomatic. However, I would like to see redirects used for the rejected terms. As a side note, I think redirects are used far too infrequently in Commons...and is probably why I created "Snow on trees" in the first place. Downtowngal (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done, I merged all three categories within Category:Trees in snow and left category redirects. - Thiotrix, 15 August 2013.
Merged into Category:Trees in snow. --rimshottalk 20:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This term was invented by users in order to categorize symbols which were also invented by users (or which are simply images of cuneiform characters). It has no verifiable existence outside of commons. Many people attempt to push their invented terminology on Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is "policed" for such attempts, the problem seems to spill over to commons, which is not as visible, but where such stunts have a much better chance of staying online for years. --Dbachmann (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty and the term doesn't seem to exist outside of Wikipedia. --rimshottalk 21:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
This term was invented by users in order to categorize symbols which were also invented by users (or which are simply images of cuneiform characters). It has no verifiable existence outside of commons. Many people attempt to push their invented terminology on Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is "policed" for such attempts, the problem seems to spill over to commons, which is not as visible, but where such stunts have a much better chance of staying online for years. --Dbachmann (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 21:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense category, Höhenstraße is a proper name, has nothing to do with anything like Höhen (neither a person, nor otherwise senseful word) Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- All of the cats in Category:Streets in Austria by name are like this, and are also not useful because they each contain one subcat (except Kirchen). It would make more sense to put the streets directly into Category:Streets in Austria by name // moogsi(blah) 14:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- In fact there is only one other Höhenstraße in Austria if Google Maps is telling me the truth, so this category is demonstrably useless // moogsi(blah) 14:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It makes *slightly* more sense if you look at Category:High streets, which has somehow needlessly become "High streets by country" // moogsi(blah) 15:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, --rimshottalk 17:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Only contains some images of the category Category:Kaaba in 2009. Torsch (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Mecca is a city and Kaaba is a single building in that city. The city attracts about 1.5 billion Muslims from around the world, with the Kaaba building being the main attraction. It's likely that many people took pictures so I think it's ok to have both categories.--Officer (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept, not empty and no reply to objection. --rimshottalk 20:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Merge of Turboprop aircraft engines and Turboprop engines. There is no effective distinction between these two categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think we should merge them too. The same goes for Category:Turbofan aircraft engines and Category:Turbofan engines. By the way, I am in the process of sorting out the main categories relating to "jet" engines in the most general sense. Ariadacapo (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there is any objection to merging these: though, if there is anything driven with a turboprop engine that doesn't fly, I'd like to see it –moogsi (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Vredeskerk (Amsterdam) should be the name of this category. Paulbe (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- The present name of the category is confusing. The name of the church is "Vredeskerk". Also the square in front of it is called Vredeskerkplein. The name of the parish is "parochie Onze Lieve Vrouw Koningin van de Vrede", but that is not the name of the church. See: www.amsterdam.vredeskerk.nl Because there are more churches that are called Vredeskerk and that have pictures in Wikimedia, there should be an identifier, "(Amsterdam)" is appropriate for that purpose. ("Oud-Zuid" is also confusing, it is the name of a former city district/borough of Amsterdam, but also the name commonly used for a much smaller neighbourhood, the present district name is by the way Amsterdam-Zuid or "Zuid".) --Paulbe (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Johnbod (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support moving to Category:Vredeskerk (Amsterdam) --moogsi (blah) 05:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support moving to Category:Vredeskerk (Amsterdam) -- Rob K. aka pa3ems - erfgoedfotografie 10:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Done –moogsi (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Mainly a semantic issue: "surgery" is a whole field, and also the act (performing a surgical procedure). There is lots of crossover between this category and Category:Surgery which it is a subcat of. The more important distinctions are disciplines and methods of surgery. I suggest it be merged into 'Surgery' --moogsi(blah) 22:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Pointless nitpicking which isn't important :D -–moogsi (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Many people in this category (the majority?) have nothing to do with aerospace, but are just plane people, e.g.
- Category:Hugo Junkers
- Category:Leslie Baynes
- Category:Eric Gordon England
- Category:Robert Esnault-Pelterie
en.wiki has "Aircraft designers" but I feel like we're missing something here. Category:Aeronautical engineers for example moogsi (blah) 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- This CFD is evidently based on a misunderstanding of the term en:Aerospace, which see. I am a retired aerospace engineer, I worked in the aerospace industry, and never had any connection with space vehicles, space exploration or missiles. However, the term 'aerospace' may have largely replaced 'aeronautics' in about the late 1950s (Sputnik, Yuri Gagarin, etc), so a bit of disambiguation might help. PeterWD (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the situation is fine... would help if I actually looked up 'aerospace' :) –moogsi (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
This category had existed without controversy at Category:History of Cleveland since 2008 until it was moved today without discussion. It should be moved back. The earlier name is equally clear, more concise, and the added disambiguation is not necessary. Unfortunately, this sort of unilateral action is not unusual for User:Foroa. Some categories shift without notice, while other proposals are rejected with minimal explanation. I support giving administrators discretion when using their tools, but this eagerness to impose opinions and disregard others' views borders on abuse of those tools. - Eureka Lott 00:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- A basic rule is that subcategory names follow the names of the parent category in a consistent way; we already have to rename and disambiguate hundreds of categories to solve conflicts, no need to add this waste of time to the subcategory level. --Foroa (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Two points: 1) This is only a waste of time according to you. The only reason we have this disambiguation in the first place is that you made another unilateral decision by turning Category:Cleveland into a disambiguation category. Disambiguation is often necessary, but your predisposition to disambiguate everything goes too far. 2) When there is a disagreement, you discuss it. You don't use your administrative tools to suppress dissent. For this community to thrive, it needs to operate on consensus, not administrative fiat. - Eureka Lott 14:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am generally less a fan of disambiguation than Foroa, but in this case I think this is a no-brainer. As best as I can tell, Eureka Lott created Category:Cleveland as a redirect to Category:Cleveland, Ohio in 2008, and the latter has been the parent category since 2005. Unless I am missing something, the disambiguation of the parent category in the city, state format would not seem to have anything to do with Foroa. If the parent category is disambiguated with the name of the state, then so should Category:History of Cleveland, Ohio (and all the subcats for that matter).
In respect of the implications that Foroa's actions were somehow abusive or improper, the category work on Commons is massive, categories are moved everyday, and we can't open a discussion for every move that seems uncontroversial. Numerous contributors (not just admins) make this kind of move all the time. This move would have also struck me as uncontroversial clean-up. In this case, however, the move quite obviously turned out not to be uncontroversial, and that's why we have CFD. However, I am not sure that the complaints about who did what are helpful or necessary. Moreover, if there is an issue with whether disambiguation is needed or not, I would have thought the issue ought to have been raised on a more general basis in respect of the parent category. But absent a change in the parent category, I am not sure what the problem is with this move. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not as much of a no-brainer as you might think. It's actually fairly common to have categories for large U.S. cities that use the [city, state] construction for their main category while omitting the state name in their subcategories. For example, the categories for Indianapolis, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle all use this convention, for the most part. There are plenty of other examples, as well.
- I am generally less a fan of disambiguation than Foroa, but in this case I think this is a no-brainer. As best as I can tell, Eureka Lott created Category:Cleveland as a redirect to Category:Cleveland, Ohio in 2008, and the latter has been the parent category since 2005. Unless I am missing something, the disambiguation of the parent category in the city, state format would not seem to have anything to do with Foroa. If the parent category is disambiguated with the name of the state, then so should Category:History of Cleveland, Ohio (and all the subcats for that matter).
- Two points: 1) This is only a waste of time according to you. The only reason we have this disambiguation in the first place is that you made another unilateral decision by turning Category:Cleveland into a disambiguation category. Disambiguation is often necessary, but your predisposition to disambiguate everything goes too far. 2) When there is a disagreement, you discuss it. You don't use your administrative tools to suppress dissent. For this community to thrive, it needs to operate on consensus, not administrative fiat. - Eureka Lott 14:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that Foroa's actions are relevant here. Foroa started by redirecting Category:History of Cleveland. I disagreed with the edit, so I reverted it. Instead of discussing the change, Foroa's response was to delete the category. I believe that's an inappropriate use of the mop and bucket. - Eureka Lott 02:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- We can all find a few random examples of bad categorization on the Commons. They do not serve as valid rationale for more bad categorization. As you know, Commons is a work in progress, and examples of categorization that are inconsistent with our policies, guidelines and practices can be found everywhere, some of them longstanding. You yourself do a lot of category work, so you know as well as anyone that the number of files and categories grows as fast as our ability to do clean up. Category names are supposed to be in English, for example, but I could find multiple examples of improperly named categories in other languages in minutes. Similarly, COM:OVERCAT is policy, but it wouldn't take any of us very much time at all to find multiple examples of files categorized in both the parent category and the subcategory. All the categories you've pointed to are a mess of inconsistent category naming, all in dire need of clean up. They are not really compelling examples, nor were they when you relied on them three months ago the last time someone tried to properly name a Cleveland category.
With all due respect, and I am not trying to be patronizing or rude here (since you are an experienced contributor), but I believe that you're fighting a losing battle if you pick a fight every time someone tries to make a Cleveland subcategory consistent with Commons naming practice. This is going to keep coming up. If you do not think disambiguation is required, then you should be initiating a CFD to move the parent category to the plain name. Absent that, I am not sure why you think these subcats merit a special exemption. The examples you've given aren't great. It's especially puzzling since some of the Cleveland subcats already are disambiguated, and a number of the ones that are not disambiguated will only remain that way as long as someone doesn't get around to subdividing Category:Cleveland, England by topic, which will presumably occur eventually. The history subcat in particular, I am guessing, would have not remained undisambiguated long (even if Foroa hadn't come along), because the category for the Cleveland in Australia is full of history photos.
As for who did what, I apologize that I had not appreciated that Category:History of Cleveland had been deleted by Foroa, and my comments above would have been somewhat different had I known that. However, I am always of the view that going on about allegations of bad conduct is rarely helpful in discussions such as these, and usually just takes away from one's substantive points and turns people off from the discussion (I say this as I haven't always followed this advice in the past). If you feel Foroa really stepped over a line, there are more appropriate forums for you to pursue that than CFD. What Foroa did, or didn't do, doesn't help your argument (your initial post is way more focused on Foroa than what the appropriate category name might be). You might have been better served by simply saying "Foroa ought not to have deleted Category:History of Cleveland when he knew I had concerns" and left it at that. Instead you seemed to accusing Foroa of having created the parent category disambiguation in the first place over your objections, which does not appear to be correct at all. At this stage, rightly or wrongly I feel nobody has behaved particularly well here. I shouldn't have that impression since we have two great contributors here and IMHO neither has committed any real error here. But that's the impression one leaves when the focus is on alleged misdeeds. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- We can all find a few random examples of bad categorization on the Commons. They do not serve as valid rationale for more bad categorization. As you know, Commons is a work in progress, and examples of categorization that are inconsistent with our policies, guidelines and practices can be found everywhere, some of them longstanding. You yourself do a lot of category work, so you know as well as anyone that the number of files and categories grows as fast as our ability to do clean up. Category names are supposed to be in English, for example, but I could find multiple examples of improperly named categories in other languages in minutes. Similarly, COM:OVERCAT is policy, but it wouldn't take any of us very much time at all to find multiple examples of files categorized in both the parent category and the subcategory. All the categories you've pointed to are a mess of inconsistent category naming, all in dire need of clean up. They are not really compelling examples, nor were they when you relied on them three months ago the last time someone tried to properly name a Cleveland category.
- I'm afraid that Foroa's actions are relevant here. Foroa started by redirecting Category:History of Cleveland. I disagreed with the edit, so I reverted it. Instead of discussing the change, Foroa's response was to delete the category. I believe that's an inappropriate use of the mop and bucket. - Eureka Lott 02:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the detailed response. I do appreciate it. It looks like I failed to make myself clear above. When I listed those examples, I wasn't trying to make an WP:OTHERSTUFF-style argument. Rather, I was contending that the category construction is a de facto naming convention, and that the categories like Category:Sports in Los Angeles aren't incorrectly named. I realize that not everyone will share that opinion, but I don't think it's a decided issue. In the case of the Cleveland categories, I don't believe there's a need for disambiguation, regardless of what happens in the England and Queensland categories, just as Category:Statues in Boston remains undisambiguated while Category:Statues in Boston, Lincolnshire also exists.
- As for Category:Cleveland's conversion to a disambiguation page, I wasn't trying imply that there was a renaming that occurred. I was merely pointing out another example of Foroa imposing unnecessary disambiguation. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, and apologize for creating confusion. However, there are many other times when Foroa's actions have bordered on the uncivil. If it was a one-time occurrence, I would have let it go. I'm no longer willing to accept being bullied. - Eureka Lott 16:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're very kind to say that about my long-winded response.
But I have to say that a few examples of bad categorization does not a naming convention make. And the Boston category is apples and oranges, because the MA Boston is at the plain title. If you don't believe disambiguation is needed, suggest moving the parent category. Otherwise, you're fighting a losing battle (these subcats will eventually be renamed) and the wrong battle (resisting proper naming for subcats when your real issue is the parent cat). We are somewhat talking in circles here, so I will not take it as you agreeing with me if you simply decide not to respond. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're very kind to say that about my long-winded response.
- As for Category:Cleveland's conversion to a disambiguation page, I wasn't trying imply that there was a renaming that occurred. I was merely pointing out another example of Foroa imposing unnecessary disambiguation. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, and apologize for creating confusion. However, there are many other times when Foroa's actions have bordered on the uncivil. If it was a one-time occurrence, I would have let it go. I'm no longer willing to accept being bullied. - Eureka Lott 16:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Category:History of Cleveland, Ohio as the cat and use Category:History of Cleveland as a redirect to Category:History of Cleveland, Ohio or make disambig if there are other Clevelands. The City, State is the standard format, and IMHO, makes it easier for international users. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- EurekaLott, Skeezix1000, FieldMarine: Given that Category:Cleveland is now a disambiguation page with no less than six entries, it makes sense to keep this category as is. I don't see any great need to redirect Category:History of Cleveland, Ohio or make it disambig, but if there is strong feeling that that should be done, I will accept it, preferably the latter. Can we close this 3-year-old discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- I support closing, however, I was one vote for keep. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. My position remains the same, but more importantly, I'd also like to see this wrapped up, regardless of the conclusion. The discussion has remained open far too long. - Eureka Lott
Leaving as is, not on the basis that this is the correct name, but on the basis that such a decision should be made about Category:Cleveland and Category:Cleveland, Ohio and this category should simply follow.... and on the basis that the discussion is three years old without any clear resolution. Thanks all involved for your input, and for the respectful nature of the whole discussion. If only all disagreements on commons were so friendly. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
This got me thinking about whether I understand what the category system is really for. How necessary is it when there is the more populated, useful and useable Category:Streets by city by country? This is a serious question because I'm still at the point where categories give me a bit of a headache. Categorizing streets by name first already seems kind of silly... subcats of Category:Streets by name hold little value but curiosity, which is ok I guess. Am I missing something here? // moogsi(blah) 16:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. I think you're somewhat misunderstanding what's going on. As long as we're categorising streets by name, it helps to split them up by country; we have "_____ by country" categories all over the place because they help to divide overarching categories. Remember that we can put a category into multiple parent categories; this and "streets by city by country" serve different purposes, so it doesn't hurt to have both. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Closing very old request, keep per Nyttend. BMacZero (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Improper use of a category page: Commons is not Wikipedia. Also see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 40#What to do with Category:AAAP ?. No one seems to understand what this category means. If only the original creator understands the purpose of the category, then I suppose that it should be deleted. Stefan4 (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I cannot understand the extremely long and confusing category page, so as a minimum it should be cut to something reasonable and understandable.
- It makes no sense to invent a new unclear type of license that is hardly used, only by (probably) 2 persons, so unless it is cleaned up and becomes clear and there are clear wikipedia pages that document such a movement, I think we better delete it. --Foroa (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone can give a concise definition of this supposed license, and point to a Wikipedia article (in any language), which describes it, it needs to go. this appears to be a soapbox.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- 日本語訳
- あなたがたが、Wikipedianの諸氏よ、私の告発者らによっていかなる心証を持つに至ったかは私は存じません。私自身はと言うと、もう少しで自分が誰なのかわからなくなるところでした。それほどの説得力ある話を彼ら（告発者ら）はしました。けれども本当のことは何一つといっていいほど語りませんでした。--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- AAAPは私的なものではなく共有ライセンスです。私が亡くなったあとに、私について調べる人が困りますが、それで構いませんか？
- #AAAP license is shared rather than private ones. When I died, but my timeline no archives don't find out about people in problem and trouble, it does not matter whether it you?I think that manga.References --MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- あなたがたの会話を見ると、私に対するリンチに思うことが出来るが、善意に基づく判断か？
- I think Not based on the good faith judgment!
- This looking at the ignore my conversation.
- Your Lynch to me?--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- ときに悪意ある編集者や、自説を何とか通したい編集者は、自分の主張や観点が否定された後もぐだぐだと固執し、いつまでも言い続け、他者の言葉を受け入れたり自らの過ちを認めたりすることを拒否して、いつまでも論争を続けようとします。そして、しばしばこのような編集者は、要点をはっきりさせようとしてなされた、他者のささいな発言を根拠にして、次なる攻撃や妨害的編集を続けようとします。
- ウィキペディアは協力的で、善意に基づいた編集、そして合意の上に成り立っています。だからこそ、ある主張をしつづけることが常識的な程度を超え、方針ではこうであると明示されても、あるいは根拠に裏打ちされた意見を熟練した複数の編集者、管理者、調停者から示されても、「納得する」ことを意図的に拒否していることが明らかになった場合、納得の拒絶を継続することは、もはや正当性のある態度、方針に準拠している態度とはいえません。それは、自説を通したいがために合意形成の方針を悪用した、妨害行為です。
- Σ/D＜逆に↑の提案者をこの違反として告発します。項目の熟読を要します--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- とはいえ、なかには対話を拒否したり、明らかな悪戯行為をする人も見られます。投稿行動に対する改善依頼は利用者のノートページでの対話で著作権侵害の投稿は削除プロセスで、編集合戦は記事の保護で、非中立的な編集は中立化で対応するなどの手段があります。しかし、問題となる行動が継続され、ウィキペディアのプロジェクト進行に悪影響が及ぶ可能性が生じる場合には、こうした記事毎の対応ではなく問題のある利用者の投稿を禁止することで被害の拡大を食い止めることができます。これを投稿ブロックと呼びます。
- 対象だと思われます。少なくとも私は投稿意欲を失いましたので、明白な妨害行為と言えます。--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete Per Stephan & ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/アスキーアート保護協会. Takabeg (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Considering
- the above
- Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 40#What to do with Category:AAAP ?
- no user activity per
- User 擬古猫 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) being blocked indefinitely at ja:wp, no contribution on Commons
- User Gikoneko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (no account at ja:wp), last contribution on Commons of 8 January 2013
- User MOTOI Kenkichi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) being blocked indefinitely at ja:wp, last contribution on Commons of 18 September 2013
there is no need to keep this weird category any longer. If there are no objections I'd like to remove it.--Achim (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann 7 August 2015. --Achim (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
No source for filling this category. Currently this category filled by User:Silar, which adds to this category some days for pre-Christian folk festivals/holidays, usually attachment to some Orthodox holiday, but not directly related to the liturgy and have no right to be called collectively as "Eastern Orthodox liturgical days". --Kaganer (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Kaganer, are you saying this is not a valid category, or are you simply disputing what has been placed in the category? - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- What has been placed. User:Silar, in his manner, put there is a very strange set of items. Category, he gives up (linked over interwiki) are linked incorrectly (if look at it strictly), because have different content in different wikis. In general, Sylar puts folk festivals in the category related (by his name) to a strictly defined set of religious events (in the Eastern Orthodox Churches). --Kaganer (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Kaganer: It seems quite reasonable that only religious events should be in this category, but I can't easily identify which ones don't belong. Maybe the problem has already been fixed. Given that there has been no opposition, I think you'd be free to remove those sub-categories of non-religious holidays. Or if you want to list them, I can help remove them. There's no need for further discussion, as far as I can see. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion completed or permanently stalled. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Ambiguous name and definition. The corresponding Wikipedia article does not limit itself to "small-scale early 20th century piston electricity generator". Should we not create such a category, and use the present one to mean what it says? Ariadacapo (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is ambiguous, but that's a matter for disambiguation more than anything. We certainly have a need for both.
- "Stationary engine" has two widespread meanings:
- Engines that don't move.
- Small, usually single cylinder, internal combustion engines used on farms etc. in the first half of the 20th century: post industrialisation, pre-rural electrification. Note that these are not generally electrical generators – they operate machinery directly, usually by belt drive.
- Both of these have vast sourcing available.
- "Engines that are stationary" should be a metacat, with no media directly within it. There are some obvious subcategories, each of which is itself enormous.
- If this category needs the name to be disambiguated, then the name might be suffixed with a disambiguator in brackets (Your guess?). This category shouldn't be deleted or re-defined though, it already has 70 images and 13 sub cats, all of which are already in-line with the definition as given in the header. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Has a decision been made?
- Keep and take the lead from Andy, please--ClemRutter (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Has a decision been made?
Not done: Kept. However @Andy Dingly: , can you reorganise the category "Stationary engines" please?. Ruthven (msg) 08:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This one makes the category tree much to deep, with Windmills in Molenwaard also present, ik makes sense to delete this category, and put the subcats in 'Windmills in Molenwaard'. Also, they won't end up in Streefkerk, but in Rijksmonumenten in Streefkerk then. Akoopal (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- you can't ever go too deep in categorization - Vera (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is a mistake that they should end up isolated in category:Rijksmonumenten in ... Rijksmonumenten is a flat "label" category that should run in parallel with normal building categorisation. Look for example at the items in Category:Rijksmonumenten in Maastricht; there they understand the problem. --Foroa (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Vera: Yes you can, categories are to find things, if you don't exactly know where something is, you keep searching for something. I myself would for mills prefer to have everything at provence level, but I understand that for some municiples that is not handy. But to then go for places within municiples, that really makes things to hidden and not findable anymore. Akoopal (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- I really don't see why with Windmills we should do things differently than, for example, churches. - Vera (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't do a lot for churches, but if I was I would say the same, either stop at municiple level, or skip that completely and do it only on place level. But I work on the windmill tree, and there I try to at least keep everything findable. Akoopal (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is a mistake that they should end up isolated in category:Rijksmonumenten in ... Rijksmonumenten is a flat "label" category that should run in parallel with normal building categorisation. Look for example at the items in Category:Rijksmonumenten in Maastricht; there they understand the problem. --Foroa (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete "Keeping everything findable" is a valid argument and a very simple and justifiable demand. It trumps "you can't ever go too deep in categorization"! --Nabak (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done: Category rich enough to be kept. Ruthven (msg) 08:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- It must be correct - National Harvest Thanksgiving ceremony in Poland's Jasna Góra Catholic sanctuary in Częstochowa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silar (talk • contribs) 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are you saying "It should be corrected to National Harvest Thanksgiving ceremony in Poland's Jasna Góra Catholic sanctuary in Częstochowa", or are you saying "It must be correct, so nothing needs to be changed?" - Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Not done: Kept, no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 08:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Paintings by production area by country. 1 imho this means paintings are now outside Germany. For File:Altdorfer, Albrecht - Donaulandschaft mit Schloß Wörth.jpg in Germany Category:1520s paintings from Germany is not applicable, here category .. in Germany must be used. All paintings in this cat are outside Germany exept File:Altdorfer, Albrecht - Donaulandschaft mit Schloß Wörth.jpg put in this cat by User:Mattes.—Oursana (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment Wrong approach. Why pick one out of ~ 1,000 of such categories? A meta discussion is needed, or a new named extra category or at least a definition for the members of category:YYDDs paintings from COUNTRY. In my understanding, category:YYDDs paintings from COUNTRY means the decade of the completion of a painting plus the origin of the artist (e.g. completion in 1594 + German artist = category:1590s paintings from Germany). --Mattes (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Category:1520s paintings from Germany 27 Files out of 28 are correctly outside Germany, so users do not use this cat for paintings from and in Germany, see Baroque paintings from Italy with the following definition: English: Baroque paintings produced by Italian painters, currently located outside Italy. For baroque paintings in Italy please see: Baroque paintings in Italy.Definition by G.dall orto see difflink–—Oursana (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC);
- Also see Category:Art in Venice: English: Works of art that were created or found in Venice and are still located there. For works of art that were created or found in Venice but now are preserved elsewhere please see Category:Art from Venice instead. For works of art which are not sure where they are, please see: Category:Art of Venice.–—Oursana (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I typed a long and rather annoyed comment on this topic a few days ago, then forgot to save it. Oursana, your definition does not make sense. A painting "from" a place is simply a painting "from" a place. This is a useful category structure. I went to a lot of work populating Category:Paintings from France by decade using the "VisualFileChange" tool (and Mattes gets credit for setting up most of these categories). I would like to do the same for Germany, Italy, and Spain, at least. I will not be considering whether the painting is "still in" that country, because it doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter what the definitions of some of those categories you mention are. They aren't valid definitions by the basic semantics of English prepositions. They lead us to an unuseful and illogical category structure (it's already happened, but I'm trying to fight it). "From" does not mean "no longer in", unless the context makes it obvious. And "Category:Paintings in France certainly does not contain only paintings by French painters that are still in French museums. The definitions you propose are not holding, because those definitions do not make sense. Please reconsider how far you want to take this argument. There are so many "art in a place" categories and so few "art from a place" categories that is mind-boggling. Yet which is more important? Obviously to categorize art by its origination tells us something important. What museum it happens to be located in today, much less important. Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I still hold on my arguments, "from" means indeed "no longer in", from is only meant after movement, if the painting is not moved it is only "in a country", the movement outside the country makes it "from the country", see Category:Paintings from Italy in Spain "from Italy" you use if you have no specific sub cats like this or the actual place outside Italy is not known. I do not want to repeat, but there is a difference between Category:Art from Venice and Category:Art of Venice. Perhaps you mean "of country"= italian, dutch..., then indeed the actual place is not important.–—Oursana (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Experiencing similar categories let me point out again that one can not only decide from seeing Cat:Art from x, but one has also to consider, that there is at the same time Cat: Art in x:
- Category:1520s paintings from Germany and Category:1520s paintings in Germany, Category:Baroque paintings from Italy Category:Baroque paintings in Italy; Category:Art from Venice Category:Art in Venice. When both categories apply, using both would be over categorization, in these cases in X should prevail and from x should only be applicable when in x does not apply concurrently. So one must not interpret with view on grammar and wording only but from the context what makes sense with view to concurrenting categories.
- And so again see the Definition: Baroque paintings produced by Italian painters, currently located outside Italy. For baroque paintings in Italy please see: Category:Baroque paintings in Italy.and also: Works of art that were created or found in Venice but now are preserved elsewhere. For works of art still located in Venice please see Category:Art in Venice instead. For works of art which are not sure where they are, please see: Category:Art of Venice. I am not familiar with the organization of this discussion. As it is a question concerning also other cats, should it be discussed in another place? –—Oursana (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I can imagine that those who don't have to do with Italian art, this system (in, from, of) can be almost incomprehensible and seem redundant. It is not. In Italy we have such an abundance of artistic objects of all kinds and from every culture and period, that it was necessary to organize his art in this way. The word "found" that sounds strange for a painting, it refers mainly to archaeological objects. In past centuries, Italy was truly plundered in ancient (and even in the medieval and modern) art that statues, vases, paintings, jewelry and more of extraordinary quality are now in the most important museums and private collections in the world. So, if we have any category of art in Italy (for example, "Ancient Roman statues in Rome"), and in it there are files of statues that are stored in London, New York, the Louvre together with those located in museums in Rome, then the preposition "in" simply is incorrect and not true. This categorization of Italian art is probably not so important for other countries, for example Germany. This can be discussed. But for me personally would sound also strange and incorrect the categorization "Paintings in Germany" used for a painting which is now in the Metropolitan Museum or the Louvre or the British Museum. For the categorization of Italian art, go back to a more simplified and ambiguous system, simply it's unthinkable and impossible. Furthermore among the artistic categories of Italy there are still many that need to be corrected and remedied in this way. The work certainly is not done yet. --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks you for your answer, which I do not quite understand. I must admit, that until now, I did not notice that in is not in.
- Here we are discussing if a painting from a german painter, which is still in Germany, can be cat:...from and in e.g. Germany at the same time, or as you said in Category:Art from Venice For works of art still located in Venice please see Category:Art in Venice instead. For works of art which are not sure where they are, please see: Category:Art of Venice.--Oursana (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
2 I think the answer is implicit. If in is in a place, then in cannot be the same as from a place. If an object is in a location, then it's in that location; if it is no more in that location, then it is not in that location but from that location. I think it's clear. It cannot be the same! (bolded by)--Oursana (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)--DenghiùComm (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- This seems like a very strange interpretation of the phrase "something from somewhere". If I say a person is "from France", do they have to have moved out of the country? There are very very many
people whopaintings which are from Francewhowhich are also currently in France. If "from" and "in" are mutually exclusive, how do I describesomeonesomething from Francewhowhich is still there? Maybe this is a language barrier thing --moogsi·(blah) 20:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC) - Out of interest, what are the words you're translating as "in", "from" and "of"? Do they have a specific meaning when talking about objects or works of art? "From" in English doesn't imply any kind of motion in any context --moogsi·(blah) 20:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- This seems like a very strange interpretation of the phrase "something from somewhere". If I say a person is "from France", do they have to have moved out of the country? There are very very many
- I do not understand what sense does to move the discussion on people. We are talking about objects, namely objects of art. People are not objects, and unlike objects, they move. The people of the world are divided by country (of). It is very reasonable that people by occupation are categorized "from country". A French architect or artist is always from France, if it is in France or if he moved to the United States. For our categories, for a person it makes no sense to speak of "in country". I'm surprised that it's necessary to explain this. --DenghiùComm (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about this very specific context, I'm talking about the language in general. You can't give a word a definition that no-one is familiar with and then expect them to use the categories in the way you expect. You can't say to everyone "oh by the way, before you use this category, let me tell you what 'from' really means..." I'm surprised it's necessary to explain this.. :( --moogsi (blah) 20:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Why not? Commons is a multi-cultural project. Being clear is the best thing to do. Unnecessary controversy ... --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well you certainly can say it to everyone... there's just no practical way to do that. Putting a note on the category page isn't enough. I just wish there were internationalization on the category names... --moogsi (blah) 22:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. we have established categories: for where paintings were originally made, Category:Paintings by production area, with the subcats all in the form "Paintings from Foo", and for current locations of paintings, Category:Paintings by location, with the subcats all in the form "Paintings in Foo". We could try to revisit the whole tree, and define all the words differently. I say, regardless of the potential semantics for all these words, this is how we do it. Word up.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Foo is lovely this time of year --moogsi (blah) 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- From should mean "from" regardless of current location, "in" is used for current location. Johnbod (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Unless I was taught a different language than you, "in" means "in" and "from" means "from". There is no need to explain anything, simply there are some people that misread "from" as "in", and viceversa, hence the need to correct them. We need a method to tell if a painting "from" Venice currently "in" Milan is a different thing than a painting "from" Milan now in Milan -- or in New York. The simplest way is to say that what is in, is "in", and what is from, is "from". Saying that what is from is "in", and what is in is "from" is by no way a "simpler" way: it is merely a mess. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please, to get you right: Would you call a painting still in Venice from Venice? Yes or no. Thanks. I think you remember yourdefinition in Baroque paintings from Italy--Oursana (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
3 (?see above difflink)--Oursana (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Kinda weird ... Oursana
shouldcould create such categories (e.g. 1520s paintings once on display in Germany). --Mattes (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC) modified --Mattes (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC) - Keep as stated above and following G.dallorto, and DenghiùComm 26.1. @Mattes:we must not create so many new categories. I recommend: ...from Italy in Austria as we have many, see among this, and ....from Italy location unknown, ...Italian...in Italy. Hopefully everybody can go ahead with this. It is not a question whether to keep, but how to use the cats--Oursana (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Even if you had more than one person agreeing with you, the thousands of other people using the category system would continue to use the words "from" and "in" to mean what they mean. I suggest you stop being so invested in this --moogsi (blah) 00:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- obviously you cannot count to three. I simply found different/disambigious categorizations, which is necessary to discuss.--Oursana (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- obviously you cannot look up "from" in a dictionary. I'd ask you to name the 3 people who agree with what you're proposing, but I clearly have nothing more to contribute to this. GOOD DAY. --moogsi (blah) 13:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Question is: Can the German file File:Altdorfer, Albrecht - Donaulandschaft mit Schloß Wörth.jpg, which is in Germany be put in Category:1520s paintings from Germany , yes or no.
- No
- Oursana
- DenghiùComm
- G.dallorto
- Yes
- Mattes OK (along with "~in Bavaria") --Mattes (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Moogsi
- Johnbod
- Boo-Boo Baroo
- Mattes
Please check if I got it right, not all statements are clear.--Oursana (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like to add my name to the Yes side. I don't think there's anything wrong with categorizing things both by provenance AND location. It seems reasonable that someone would want to know what paintings they can see in a certain country totally independently of which paintings come from a certain country, and vice versa. I don't think that's over-categorization at all. Rather, it's quite useful categorization. So in general, I think all paintings should be categorized by location and origin. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Closing, since the discussion mostly finished in 2013 and there was no consensus for change. There's a whole tree of such categories starting at Category:Paintings by production area. --ghouston (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Possibly rename to a more consistent "anti-" or "opposition to" category. djr13 (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC) (Some prior discussion on renaming: Category talk:Hate for pedophiles#Category naming.)
- As was said in our discussion in 12:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC), the corresponding en:wiki article is en:Anti-pedophile activism. For such simple rename requests, {{Move}} template is a better way than CfD. --ŠJů (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I opened this cfd as the rename seemed controversial. I'm not sure if "activism" is the best option here, as this is more imagery than activity. The activism equivalent of this would probably be Category:Demonstrations and protests against pedophilia which this category is currently a subcategory of. djr13 (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is difficult to find the best name for different types of such activities. However, the current name seems to be quite fitting for the current content which consists only of hateful stickers and writings. As soon as appear some different stuff (e. g. murders from hate or their victims, activists and anti-activists, independent researchers on this topic etc.) we can think about renaming the category or create another one. I think, the words "anti-" or "opposition to" hardly help to better aptness of the category name. --ŠJů (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I opened this cfd as the rename seemed controversial. I'm not sure if "activism" is the best option here, as this is more imagery than activity. The activism equivalent of this would probably be Category:Demonstrations and protests against pedophilia which this category is currently a subcategory of. djr13 (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Demonstrations and protests against pedophilia is really Category:Demonstrations and protests against child sexual abuse (it is in Category:Demonstrations and protests against crime) (rename?). Here, in discussed category, is hateful "activism" against pedophiles. E.g. in ia.wikipedia is article ia:Pedophilophobia. See e. g. image from Poland File:Graffiti Poznan Pedofilia.jpg. This inscription is: "Cure for pedophiles can be cheap". Best regards. Belfer00 (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Djr13, ŠJů, and Belfer00: What about just Category:Anti-pedophilia ? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- A hate for a group of people is not identic with a hate for their medical diagnosis or psychical quality/endowment/disorder (even a pedophile himself can hate his own egosyntonic pedophilic orientation). Pedophilia itself is not an ideology nor a crime but an eroto-sexual orientation which is generally classified as patological or dangerous. A fight against influenza or tooth decay is generally not considered as a fight against affected people or a hate for them, and a hate for people with influenza or a fear of them can be hardly called "anti-influenza". As regards mental diagnoses or attributes, anti-alcoholism is more intelligible than anti-schizophrenia, anti-homosexuality or anti-left-handedness. It's needed to distinguish between
- an activism against a sexual abuse of children and similar harmful acting (pedophiles can agree and support such efforts, and they mostly do so, as well as heterosexuals generally condemn a rape against women)
- a prude position in debates about sexual liberalism or age limits of sexual life or sexual education (pedophilia is not a core of that discussion, even pedpohlies can be both, puritanical as well as liberal)
- an activism or efforts to treat or change the pedophilic orientation (which can be medically or ethically controversial but needs not to be hateful, as well as a "conversion therapy" of homosexuality, transsexuality, sado-masochism, left-handedness etc.)
- an activism aimed to a hate or motivated by a hate for some group of people for their congenital dissimilarity (a panic fear of the group can be similar to the hate, from viewpoint of the sociological processes).
- A hate for a group of people is not identic with a hate for their medical diagnosis or psychical quality/endowment/disorder (even a pedophile himself can hate his own egosyntonic pedophilic orientation). Pedophilia itself is not an ideology nor a crime but an eroto-sexual orientation which is generally classified as patological or dangerous. A fight against influenza or tooth decay is generally not considered as a fight against affected people or a hate for them, and a hate for people with influenza or a fear of them can be hardly called "anti-influenza". As regards mental diagnoses or attributes, anti-alcoholism is more intelligible than anti-schizophrenia, anti-homosexuality or anti-left-handedness. It's needed to distinguish between
- The current category name is more fitting then the mentioned alternatives, as Belfer00 explained. "Here, in discussed category, is hateful activism against pedophiles." Under the term "antipedophilia", I would understand rather some opposite of pedophilia (e.g. misopedia or gerontophilia). --ŠJů (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- It can simply be merged with Category:Demonstrations and protests against pedophilia. --Ruthven (msg) 10:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- The current category name is more fitting then the mentioned alternatives, as Belfer00 explained. "Here, in discussed category, is hateful activism against pedophiles." Under the term "antipedophilia", I would understand rather some opposite of pedophilia (e.g. misopedia or gerontophilia). --ŠJů (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Merged into Category:Demonstrations and protests against pedophilia Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I find it very odd that male writers from the United States are all directly in the category "Writers from the United States" but female writers are ghettoized off to a subcategory. Either we separate all writers by a gender binary or not. Otherwise, we are effectively saying that men who write are "writers" but women who write are "female writers". Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Female categories make no sense and are an efficient way to marginalise them. --Foroa (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, you do not have subcategory. (The other categories or discrimination?) Tamba52 (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with this proposal, but not completely with Foroa's general statement. Some professions are overwhelmingly male, so a female category can make sense in some cases. But generally and in this case, Foroa is correct that female categories can marginalize, and it doesn't make sense to have such a category here unless we are prepared to create a male writers category (which is unnecessary, IMHO). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Splitting a profession by gender only makes sense if gender has a major bearing on the profession (sportspeople, models...) --moogsi (blah) 15:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- It would be ok if this were not a diffusing category, i.e. everything in Category:Female writers from the United States were also in Category:Writers from the United States. But it seems these are hard to label or understand on Commons --moogsi (blah) 01:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: I think consensus is pretty clear on this. I don't often take cues from wikipedia, but w:WP:EGRS is a good, common-sense guideline IMO. As mentioned, it might be useful if w:Template:Distinguished subcategory or equivalent existed here... I don't think it does --moogsi (blah) 20:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per above, and this also makes me wonder if categories like Category:Men of the United States should exist. But I bet that one has been discussed… -Pete F (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Striking my vote per what moogsi says below. Seems I was hasty. -Pete F (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I had another think about this. Maybe the justification as the top of w:Category:Women writers is worth considering... --moogsi (blah) 21:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: not sufficient as argument to make us to create and maintain hundreds of additional categories allover the world. --Foroa (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete A wikipedia category serves an entirely different purpose than a Commons category. Wikipedia categories are intended to allow users to explore and read about similar topics (so a category dedicated to the field of women writers makes sense), while here we are mainly looking for the hierarchy that most easily allows users to find the media they need. I'm not sure that segregating women writers helps Commons users one iota. So while I appreciate the logic in the justification over at the en-wp category, it's not clear that it applies here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
While most posts here have agreed with me, I don't think this yet constitutes enough of a consensus to make a decision like this. I'm going to post on the Village pump and try to get more people to weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 16:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: This is hard to avoid, because of the following train of logic:
- There are some countries or genres where being a female writer would be especially notable and researchers may be especially interested in finding examples.
- Once such a category exists, do you have a general Category:Female writers, or just a "female by country"/"female by genre" parent category, intentionally avoiding the general female writers category? (This is probably the point at which a decision is important.)
- If you have a general Category:Female writers (like we do now), it will end up getting populated, because people are always going to add media to categories that match the subject.
- If such a general category is going to be populated, then it almost certainly will be become so large that it will need a {{CatDiffuse}} to avoid becoming ridiculous.
- If we have gotten to this point, then we're back to having subcategories for either every country with a large number of female authors, or every genre with a large number of female authors, or some other way of dividing up female writers so most of them are not in the general category.
- I'd tend to lean towards keeping more categorization rather than less, especially when it might help classify media for educational use: See en:Category:Women writers pointed out by moogsi above. If Category:Female writers is going to stay, and Category:Writers from the United States is going to stay, we might as well have Category:Female writers from the United States (and put people in one discrete category instead of two general ones) if there is reason to believe that, for example, American female writers are a specific subject of educational interest. That being said: If a female category exists for a certain topic, it may be reasonable to have a "male" category also; and it might also be resonable to have a "male" category for those subjects where male involvement is an educational subject. (And non-diffusion categories are very difficult to enforce, especially on a multilanguage project where the "big" category rule drilled into everyone's head is that you don't add redundant parent categories.) --Closeapple (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind as much if we split all writers into "male" and "female". It does remove the ghettoization aspect, although it does rather enforce a gender binary: where do we end up classifying transgendered writers, or the occasional genderqueer or intergendered writer? E.g. what would you do with an image of Patrick Califia or Christine Jorgensen? Still, it would be better than the situation where male writers are simply "writers" and female writers are "female writers". - Jmabel ! talk 07:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete Per Jmabel's. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 07:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Interesting article in the New York Times on this very issue over at the English language Wikipedia: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism-toward-female-novelists.html?hp&_r=0 . --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nice to hear it from another and to help to stop wasting energy. --Foroa (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting retort as well: http://bookmaniac.org/journalists-dont-understand-wikipedia-sometimes/ --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep per Closeapple. http://www.flickr.com/ and http://500px are using non-hierarchical tags, and so should we, if people think of hierarchical categories as pigeon-holing. However, currently there's no suitable, userfriendly alternative to subcategories. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- While I agree we should be using tags, that's a whole other issue, involves a massive amount of work with MediaWiki, and is not going to happen soon. It isn't really relevant to this discussion. Perhaps I have misunderstood your comment.
And nobody is saying we should get of all subcategories for Category:Writers from the United States. The issue is whether we should be subcategorizing them by gender. There are lots of other, user-friendly ways of subcategorizing this category, as we do with other professions, by genre, location, association, etc. A number of such subcategories already exist. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- While I agree we should be using tags, that's a whole other issue, involves a massive amount of work with MediaWiki, and is not going to happen soon. It isn't really relevant to this discussion. Perhaps I have misunderstood your comment.
- Delete per Jmabel and especially Foroa. FDMS 4 23:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Meanwhile, two new categories appeared: LGBT writers from the United States and Male writers from the United States. I don't know if this is useful or smart (sex doesn't have anything to do with the capacity of writing, or shouldn't have), but this has to be considered for the discussion: either we move all in the specific sub-categories, or we maintain everything in the top category (or we classify be genre and maintain Writers from the United States a meta-category). --Ruthven (msg) 08:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete all three (including LGBT writers from the United States and Male writers from the United States). Category:Feminist writers from the United States would be different. — Jeff G. ツ 03:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Closing this as no consensus since it's been over five years. If this still needs discussion, a venue that gets much more traffic than CfD would be a better place. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Is this a duplicate of the containing Category:cross sections and even misspelled for “Sectional drawings”? I guess so and suggest to remove the contents of “Sectioned drawings” an its subcategories to the corresponding categories of “Cross sections”, and to put redirects to the empty categories. If I’m wrong, I would like to have elaborate descriptions there for distinguishing. Greetings Mapmarks (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- There are several issues with these categories. Firstly they're obviously huge in scope, so should mostly (if not entirely) be meta-categories for other categories, not for media content directly. We can afford a lot of categorization here, both as depth and breadth, because otherwise we'll see huge unwieldy categories.
- We should distinguish between "images of sectioned objects" (e.g. museum exhibits sawn in half) and "sectioned images of objects" (e.g. construction drawings). We may also wish to distinguish drawings (often highly abstracted to illustrate particular points) and photos (representational).
- Clearly there is a use case and value to categorizing extensively by subject material (e.g. ships vs engines vs fruit). For some of these (again, ships and engines are obvious) we might even formally distinguish transverse sections from longitudinal sections, in separate categories.
- I'm less fussed about the wording, so long as we also have a clear annotation on the category page as to the scope, and links to other perhaps more appropriate categories. "Sectioned" is correct though, rather than "sectional". A "sectioned" drawing is a drawing of an article, as sectioned. "Sectional" drawings imply instead that they're a drawing of an object that is itself constructed in sections. This is commonly done (again for ships) where a three-dimensional view shows the ship as if it had been sliced and pulled apart into functional compartments, but this isn't the same thing as drawing elevation views along particular planes through it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I agree to you, these categories need some clarification, and it was also my intention when I saw it the first time. But then I stumbled over this “Sectioned drawings” (= drawings of sectional views?) and thought it might be the same as “Cross sections” which are also drawings. Prior to a rearrangement in meta-categories etc., I wanted to discuss whether there is a needful distinction of the two categories?
- Apart from this, I assume that it is clear that images of sectioned objects and the photographic pictures have to be removed. Like photos of half-cut fruits or sliced models of hybrid cars should sort elsewhere.
- In addition all non-technical subjects here should leave, otherwise “Cross sections” must not have “Technical drawings” as super-category. A draft:
- Technical drawings by type (meta)
- Cross sections
- Cross sections by object (meta)
- Cross sections of engines
Cross sections of plants(move to Category:Botanical diagrams or Category:Botanical illustrations)- Cross sections of ships
- Longitudinal sections of ships
- Transverse sections of ships
- Cross sections by type (meta)
- 3D cross sections
- Architectural sections
Geological cross sections- Sectioned drawings
- etc.
- Cross sections by object (meta)
- Cross sections
- Technical drawings by type (meta)
- What do you think? -- Mapmarks (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that these make any sense. If we're talking about cross sections, let's use that term instead of "sectioned." If the distinction that needs to be made is between physical / three-dimensional cross sections, then lets use Category:Physical cross sections. Drawings or computer-generated images of cross sections can be put in Category:Cross section images or Category:Cross section illustrations. Not everything inside would be a technical drawing, unless botanical illustrations can be considered technical drawings. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Closing as merge to Category:Cross sections. Photographic images will be resorted to where they belong. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)