Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2015/06
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 June 2015
Is there a difference with Category:Bottle caps? If there is no difference, these categories should be merged. BrightRaven (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the difference is: every crown cork is also a bottle cap, but not all bottle caps are crown corks. So "Crown corks" is a subcategory of "Bottle caps". --Frank C. Müller (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I have understood the difference. I had read en:Crown cork too quickly. This discussion can be closed. Sorry for the inconvenience. BrightRaven (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The meanings are different, so there is no need for a merger. BrightRaven (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate with Category:1908 paintings in Belarus 37.17.4.18 12:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is not a duplicate. «1908 in Belarus» - these are paintings, 1908, which are now in the territory of Belarus. «1908 from Belarus» - these are the pictures that were painted in 1908 in Belarus, but now in other countries. Tatiana Markina 19:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep Indeed, not a duplicate. Revent (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Singular form, empty, uncategorized, no target for redirect available - and I have some doubts about the cat description in relation to the cat name: Is a "labour camp" really a residential area for workers? I had thought the term was only used in connection with forced labour. Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Einige der Darstellungen entsprechen nicht der Wiki-Definition "Kalender" und sollten verschoben werden nach Category:Algorithms, da sie keine Übersicht sondern Anweisungen zur Ermittlung des Wochentages für ein bestimmtes Datum sind. LenderKarl (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- (Googletranslate: Some of the images do not match the Wiki definition "Calendar" and should be moved to Category: Algorithms, because they are not index but instructions on how to determine the day of the week for a given date.)
- Keep I don't care if the image shows a physical device or a printed table or algorithm, so long as its purpose is to be a perpetual calendar (Which I think all of these are). That is not a useful distinction to make to categorisation for this purpose. Moving to the highly generic category:Algorithms would be a significant loss of specificity as to their purpose. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Es wäre sicherlich hilfreich für die Meinungsbildung die Definitionen von "Kalender" und "Algorithmus" heranzuziehen. Ich darf zitieren:" Ein Kalender ist eine Übersicht..." und "Ein Algorithmus ist eine eindeutige Handlungsvorschrift zur Lösung eines Problems...". Einige der Bilder sind m.Ea. Aufgabenstellungen (zur Ermittlung des Wochentages eines Datums), andere hingegen stellen die Lösung dar, indem die Zuordnung Wochentag/Datum überprüfbar in einer Übersicht -wie bei jedem Einjahreskalender- dargestellt wird. Das ist der Ausgeangspunkt für mein obiges Ansinnen zur Verschiebung. --LenderKarl (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- A perpetual calendar is not merely a list (if it was, it could not be perpetual). It is inherently an algorithm, even if that it merely to rotate a disc against a scale. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Das Unglück ist; jeder kann sich zum Thema Kalender äußern. Gefühle sollten aber draussen bleiben ("es ist mir egal..."). Auch ist es nicht schlecht sich zu informieren, wenn man sich an einer Diskussion beteiligt. An einem Zwiegespräch werde ich mich nicht beteilige, ich bitte um weitere fundierte Meinungen. --LenderKarl (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Fundstellenangabe etwas präzieser de:Kalender or en:Determination of the day of the week and Category:Calendar_Algorithms Good evening --LenderKarl (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose:
Wie ich mich bei meinen Äußerungen wiki-gerecht verhalte (was die Verfahrensweise anbelangt), ist mir nicht ganz klar !? Ich betrachte mich als Antragsteller und kann m.Ea. daher nicht ein "Pro" meinem Beitrag voranstellen. OK ? Nun zum Kern. Was haben sich die uploader wohl gedacht, als sie ihre perpedual Calendar in Category:Calendar_Algorithms eingebracht haben ? Bitte mal reinschauen ! Es sind eben keine Kalender, sondern nur Ermittlungswege (Wochentag für ein Datum), und dahin gehören die analogen Bilder aus der Catergory "Perbedual Calendar". Achim,schau doch bitte mal genau hin; zum Beispiel Greg. Kal.", da wirst Du feststellen: Es ist die Lösung, keine Aufgabenstellung. Freundliche Grüße und "Prosit". --LenderKarl (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hallo Karl, I didn't get it yet - ich hab's noch nicht kapiert. Meinst du, dass die Dateien Betiereko*.* und Moret*.gif hier nichts zu suchen haben, oder um welche Dateien geht es hier konkret? Gruß, --Achim (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Jetzt hab ich's begriffen (bin ja auch nicht mehr der Jüngste...), geht klar, habe das 'kontra' gestrichen. Vorschlag: Wir verfahren entsprechend deinen bisher vorgenommenen Kategorie-Änderungen und setzen einen "siehe auch"-Verweis auf die beiden Kategorie-Seiten. To our English-speaking friends: Files of Category:Perpetual calendars as well as of Category:Calendar Algorithms should get assigned correctly and a "see also" hint be put onto both cats. My contra changed to
Support. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC) 
Done. @Andy: Do you agree this way? --Achim (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any need for two categories rather than one, but they will do what is needed. I'm OK with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Files assigned anew to Category:Perpetual calendars and Category:Calendar Algorithms. --Achim (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
{{Delete|reason=wrong name, empty category, existence of the new category|subpage=Category:Tetovo train station|day=4 |month=June |year=2015 }} Ehrlich91 (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom., even if though the deletion should have been put on the category page, not a discussion opened. You could also have unchecked the box "leave a redirect behind". --rimshottalk 12:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Empty - The relevant category is called "category:Faculty of Weizmann Institute of Science" Ldorfman (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Please can we fix typo in name? Should read: British Library Asian and African Collections. Thanks! Ndalyrose (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the typo. I've now created Category:British Library Asian and African Collections and moved everything there. I suggest we make this name a category redirect. WereSpielChequers (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, as the category was relatively young and it was not a likely misspelling either. --rimshottalk 08:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Empty category: should be deleted Olivier (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Empty category: should be deleted Olivier (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Against language policy; unclear need fot it; probably created by mistake while uploading its single content file. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Empty. Not in use. Ldorfman (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The collections of Atelier Brancusi is made of artworks by Brancusi, which are not in the public domain (Brancusi died in 1957). Therefore, this category is useless. BrightRaven (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Dar geloscht werden, ist doppel met Categorie:Anna Severine Lindeman Pimbrils (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Speedily deleted, author request and category existed only a few minutes before being moved. In the future, uncheck "leave a redirect", if you don't want a redirect. --rimshottalk 20:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
This is duplicate of Category:Circinus Galaxy, one of them should be removed, however I'm not sure which name is correct. Pikador (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete, capitalised "Galaxy" is the standard here, so images should be moved to Category:Circinus Galaxy. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Done per Huntster, files moved, category redirected. Revent (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This category is uncategorized. It seems to have been added only for self-promotion of a person. Request deletion. Rsteen (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Do we still need this? I think the event is over and all the images that were uploaded have now been categorized. Reguyla (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
As this category is empty, it must be deleted. Glorious 93 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Category:Cultural heritage monuments in the Philippines uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez to sort out
editDelete as redundant. This was a temporary holding category. All files are now processed. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ploink thanks for sorting out the files! Multichill (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat since quite a time, can be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat since quite a time, can be deleted as well als BAW buses. Druschba 4 (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
To be deleted : wrong orthograph (disribution in place of distribution) ; redondant with Category:Seed dispersal Tangopaso (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Speedily deleted, misspelled duplicate of Category:Seed dispersal. --rimshottalk 19:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Empty category Reguyla (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Speedily deleted This could have been a speedy and the content appears now to reside in Category:James Taylor (cricketer). Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Empty category Reguyla (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Duplicates Category:City gates in England so not required. I created it by mistake. Northernhenge (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of Events in Rotterdam. ErickAgain 09:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect naming and duplicate of category:Events in Rotterdam ErickAgain 10:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Empty category - not needed for now Ldorfman (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat, can be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be plural, "Balls (dance)"? Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, should be moved to Category:Balls (dance). --El Grafo (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Moved. FDMS 4 12:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Misspelled I99pema (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Túrelio 27 June 2015.
Looks like a duplicate of Category:Saint Paul University Quezon City Keith D (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Done Due to official website of the university as well as en wp spelling St. Paul... is to be preferred. --Achim (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Merged files to Category:St. Paul University Quezon City and put a cat redir at Category:Saint Paul University Quezon City. --Achim (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This is an article not a file. Doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability standards...and its a complete mess. Reguyla (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Please guys help and edit it up if you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokydimgbas (talk • contribs) 02:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete It's neither an article nor a category, just a mess regarding a non-notable person (see running DR at en wp en:Victor Adimike and DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sokydimgbas). No need to keep, flagged speedy. --Achim (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by INeverCry 30 June 2015. --Achim (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Request for deletion: I just made this category because i saw a lot of insufficiently categorizsed pictures that could fit in here. However i found that there is allready an appropriate category, Category:Port of Scheveningen. Paulbe (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 07:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I am bringing this categroy to a disscusion, because despite every indication that the material is likely to be OGL it's not been possible to fully confirm it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Now raised at a more approprate forum. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Closed: Out of process scope. FDMS 4 10:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Creator's contributions are spam 209.211.131.181 17:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect name for the chemical: "N-morpholine" is meaningless/redundant/confusing, since en:Morpholine by definition includes the nitrogen but there is nothing else in the name that is being described at that location. The actual subject is :en:N-Methylmorpholine N-oxide (without the "methyl" we have a different chemical). Cat should be renamed to Category:N-Methylmorpholine N-oxide and I can't see a reason to keep a redirect. DMacks (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Rename as suggested. It was just a careless "typo" on my part. Ed (Edgar181) 15:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- It should be Category:N-methylmorpholine N-oxide IMO. --Leyo 23:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- No objection to that casing. DMacks (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agree --Achim (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- No objection to that casing. DMacks (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Category moved to Category:N-methylmorpholine N-oxide. --Achim (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I propose to delete this category : unuseful redirect and French language used instead of English as requested by wikipedia Civa (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- The category has existed for three years - after such a time there may be external links to it. As it is an established term in French, I´d rather keep the redirect. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Kept this redirect. --Achim (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Удалить, как пустую и дублирующую категорию Zarechnoe (Simferopolskiy district) kosun (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agree: Now already empty duplicate of later generated Category:Zarechnoe (Simferopolskiy district) to correct translit. spelling. --Achim (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Cleared category and put a redirect to Category:Zarechnoe (Simferopolskiy district). --Achim (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Unclear purpose, description appears nonsense and included files have no obvious relation. djr13 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Likely created in relation to this deleted file. Category name is likely to be useful to something, but not with the small and unrelated set of images in it right now. djr13 (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Cat should be deleted because of its unclear and interpretable name. --Achim (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Done: Cat contained 4 images only. Removed Smudge and added appropriate categories to some of them. Flagged speedy. --Achim (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Amitie 10g: Would you please be so kind to tell us the reason of your revert? Yours --Achim (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because there is already a Discussion (this page), then, no reason for tag for Speedy. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Cleared category and tagged speedy. --Achim (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
This was a wrong rename by another user. The enwiki article is named en:Big Bang (South Korean band) and there is no valid reason for the spelling BigBang. Teemeah (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hallo,anyone? Teemeah (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think it should be moved back to Category:Big Bang (South Korean band). It makes more sense to me. --Chiyako92 (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, almost all wikipedias use Big Bang. --Achim (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Reverted to Category:Big Bang (South Korean band). --Achim (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Category needs to be renamed as "Traffic signals in the Philippines". TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 14:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: Cats of other countries are named the same way. Its parent cat may be 'Traffic signals...'. --Achim (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action. --Achim (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
We already have Category:Mixed-breed dogs and Category:Dog hybrids - is this new and uncategorized category actually a third type or can we merge and redirect to one of the existing categories? Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Contains 1 category only - Category:American Pit Bull Terrier, which seems to belong to the dog hybrids. --Achim (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Pitke 18 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Dublicate of "Category:Bever, Switzerland" Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category:Bever, Switzerland, as it seems to be a likely category name and would be re-created otherwise. --rimshottalk 07:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Bever, Switzerland. --Achim (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
While English sources are not consistent regarding the name of this festival, one thing is clear: the city should be spelled without a hyphen (Goyang, not Go-yang). Therefore this should be renamed to Category:Goyang Flower Festival. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. --Achim (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Category moved to Category:Goyang Flower Festival. --Achim (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This category should be moved to Category:Ali Krieger, as this is her professional name. Hedwig in Washington opposed the move based on the mistaken assertion that legal, not common, name should be used in cats. Although she was known as "Alexandra" by the German media until 2013, almost every other reference to her uses "Ali". FIFA.com recognizes her as "Ali Krieger", as do US Soccer and Washington Spirit. A Google News search gets 2,865 results for "Ali Krieger" and 285 results for "Alexandra Krieger" (mostly in German, so much so that Chrome auto-translated the German headlines to English). Ytoyoda (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agree It doesn't really matter which one is the redirect. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Ali Krieger, kept redirect. --Achim (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Should be moved to Category:Jillian Ellis. Hedwig in Washington incorrectly states in Category talk:Jillian Ellis that categories should use legal names. Rather, we use names that are common in English. In this case, the person is known professionally as w:Jill Ellis, not Jillian. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agree It doesn't really matter which one is the redirect. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Achim55: Sorry, the request should was to move the category to Category:Jill Ellis. Thanks for the heads up. Ytoyoda (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Jill Ellis and put a redirect. --Achim (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This category could be renamed to "Remote views of Torre de Belém" because the images it contains are indeed distant shots JotaCartas (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
An also to differentiate from category "Torre de Belém by viewpoint", that has realty views from different cardinal points. --JotaCartas (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agree --Stegop (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Category moved to Category:Remote views of Torre de Belém. --JotaCartas (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Nominate to move to "Category:Tanay Church" to match the English Wikipedia article title and common name seav (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Category:Tanay Church already exists; categories merged. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
надо удалить, как пустую, в связи с переносом файла в материнскую kosun (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- You should read the guidelines regarding temporary categories from WLE, or at least refrain from interfering with the system that we established. --Alexander (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Azas Nature Reserve by Atsirlin 21 June 2015. --Achim (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
To delete. Already exists. Sorry Shonagon (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- What's the existing name? --rimshottalk 18:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think he had Category:East Mediterranean in the Roman Empire antiquities in the Louvre in mind. So this cat can be deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate of Category:East Mediterranean in the Roman Empire antiquities in the Louvre, author request. --rimshottalk 22:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Przewalski horse = Equus (ferus) przewalskii, the former should be merged to the latter, since Commons category names are based on biological nomenclature rather than common names (with a few exceptions such as people and dogs). Editor abcdef (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- 'Przewalski horse' is currently a subcateogry of 'Equus przewalskii'... I agree in principle, but would like more feedback before moving. Revent (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Redirected, exact same. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a duplicate of Category:Cube_houses_(Rotterdam) and has no extra purpose, and thus should be deleted MidPhoto (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment if that's what they are commonly known as in Rotterdam, a {{Category redirect}} might be better than just deleting it. --El Grafo (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I believe that's what the neighborhood is nicknamed and It's not a direct reference to the Cube houses. (I could be wrong though) MidPhoto (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Blaakse Bos is the official name of the project. Kubuswoningen is the well-known nick name. A category redirect would be best. --Paulbe (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Redirected as per foregoing discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Category is essentially a duplicate of Category:Clanwilliam. I propose that this category be deleted Gbawden (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Gbawden: I have redirected the category. Thanks,--Underlying lk (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Redirected, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 22:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Philadelphia, Western Cape. I propose this empty category be deleted Gbawden (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, empty category. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Correct name of the vehicle is ZiL-29061, all pictures moved there. Old cat can be deleted. Thanks. Druschba 4 (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, --Achim (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 27 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Empty category. Created 25 March 2014 for what appears to be a limited run of images. Seems to have run its course and may not be needed anymore. Reguyla (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 24 August 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This can be deleted as it is a duplicate of Category:SVG locator maps of countries in European Union (green and grey scheme). Rob984 (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oh so actually the "in European Union" category is suppose to show the country within the EU, while the "of European Union" category is just EU states. Still I think it should be deleted as maps of EU member states that don't show them within the EU can just be placed in the Category:SVG locator maps of countries of Europe (green and grey scheme). It's pointless splitting EU and non-EU states for no reason.
- This is the same as with Category:Locator maps of countries of Europe (green and grey scheme). Category:Locator maps of countries of European Union (green and grey scheme) and Category:Locator maps of countries in European Union (green and grey scheme).
- Rob984 (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Telugu cinema now applies to both Andhra Pradesh and Telengana. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi and thx, usually not interested in discussions, but 'Telugu' is a good idea and agree to avoid future A.P.-Telangana category 'conflicts'. started to resolve, as well for 'cuisine', please do the same for Telangana, thx, 19:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Category names should generally be plural, so should this one (see also Category:Marathons). FDMS 4 09:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Bonjour, quel est le probleme avec cette catégorie. Waht the problem with the name of this catégory? Its the name of this sport and the pictures and files, is the picture to the triathlon. i'm dont understand ???. What you propose ?-- KAPour les intimes 10:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- I propose renaming this category to Triathlons. FDMS 4 11:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ok for me, see you. Ok pour moi. Cordialement.-- KAPour les intimes 13:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think it´s ok in the singular form as the category relates to the sports discipline. "Triathlon events" (or "Triathlons" as a short form) should be a sub-category, in plural of course. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Move it to plural. Not a contentious issue IMO. Also move Category:Duathlon, Category:Biathlon, Category:Women's triathlon (although that could be deleted as it's empty?), and any others that include "Triathlon" (per country etc.). -- Deadstar (msg) 09:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think it´s ok in the singular form as the category relates to the sports discipline. "Triathlon events" (or "Triathlons" as a short form) should be a sub-category, in plural of course. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ok for me, see you. Ok pour moi. Cordialement.-- KAPour les intimes 13:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- I propose renaming this category to Triathlons. FDMS 4 11:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Please explain me – why should category names generally in plural? You've picked the only one of fifty categories organized below Category:Olympic sports – Category:Marathons. This one includes media regarding marathon races, so the plural is ok for marathons. Every one of the other categories in Category:Olympic sports describe more – events and races, but also athletes and organisations. Finally: renaming of Category:Triathlon to plural does'nt make any sense for me. --Wibramuc (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Kept due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Should be "people" not "persons". Andy Mabbett (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support I completely agree. Reguyla (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - i was going by the format used on wikipedia (i.e.: "biographies of living persons' https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons ), but i have no particularly strong opinion on the exact wording of the naming of (category) names; so long as we are agreed on the point that we should & do need to be sorting our biographical subjects by whether they are alive or dead. Lx 121 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- While we are all here discussing this category. May I suggest a bot be setup (maybe the Jarektbot by Jarekt doing the people by name cats) that adds this automagically to articles with the death cats? I could setup a bot to do this as well if desired, and would be happy to do that, but it seems like if we already have a bot functioning to do it that would be better to do an this would be rather a rather trivial task to do. Reguyla (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- I can not think of a reason why would we need such a category. If I want to get all the deceased people I would just use recursive Category:Deaths by decade. --Jarekt (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- observation -- "deaths by decade" doesn't just include PEOPLE, nor only named individuals. ALSO, end-users can't be expected to know that; much less the commands to get a list of all the names out of it. that was WHY i created the category in the first place; it flows logically from "people by name", as part of the cat-schema. Lx 121 (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I can not think of a reason why would we need such a category. If I want to get all the deceased people I would just use recursive Category:Deaths by decade. --Jarekt (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- While we are all here discussing this category. May I suggest a bot be setup (maybe the Jarektbot by Jarekt doing the people by name cats) that adds this automagically to articles with the death cats? I could setup a bot to do this as well if desired, and would be happy to do that, but it seems like if we already have a bot functioning to do it that would be better to do an this would be rather a rather trivial task to do. Reguyla (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
..........because that doesn't get you a "by name" list? i'm not going to repeat arguements, so i'm just going to repost from the last discussion i had about this: ...ok, let's go back to the basics: we NEED to classify our biographical materials by whether the subject is ALIVE or DEAD.'
here is how wikipedia (EN) does it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Living_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dead_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_status
Lx 121 (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Lx 121 (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- & for the record, nobody has added anything to that discussion, since i posted it. if you'd like, i can c & p the rest of my reasoning here; but i don't see how it is hard to understand: "we should have a list of the people by name who are alive", & "we should have a list of the people by name who are dead". this is a very BASIC oragnizational categorization. Lx 121 (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- there is also the obvious point that not everything with a date of death will be a person, much less a person 'by name'. Lx 121 (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Although not a response to Andy Mabbett, this category should IMO be deleted per Jarekt. FDMS 4 12:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't really feel strongly about whether or not to keep this category and I shall not lose any sleep if its simply deleted but I would offer a couple thoughts. It is fairly difficult process for most people to extract a list of people if they have to mine through what amounts to thousands of categories to get a list of Deceased or Living people. So it makes some sense to me to have a category that associates them together in one place rather than have to search recursively through thousands of years worth of categories when creating a cat that lists them would be easy to automate with a bot. Its certainly easier to use that category if you are running AWB or a bot. Likewise, if we are going to have categories for year of birth and death, X century births and deaths, etc. then we really should have a category for Living people and that really should not redirect to Category:People, which doesn't make much sense. The last time it was suggested about having a Living people category I actually opposed it, because it would be difficult to keep updated, but as I have worked with the birth and death cats more and more and after thinking more and more about how our content interacts with other projects like Wikidata and Wikipedia, I can't help but wonder how we can have one without the other. Reguyla (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- AFAIK an actual list of all – this category rather is a random selection by users feelling like categorising into it – deceased or living people with categories on Commons could easily be generated by a tool on toollabs. FDMS 4 13:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- btw: a purely bot/tool-generated list as you described would inevitably contain errors (see my comment above to jarekt); you still need human-review to weed out "non-persons" from the dead cats, & we don't have proper "living" cats, outside the one created here, so a machine-generated list of that would contain EVEN MORE errors. you'd also have trouble identifying & isolating the "by name" element. we NEED human-intelligence in sorting & categorising materials commons; the intelligent "curating" is what make commons more than just a file-dump, & de facto, ALL commons' categories are "a random selection by users feeling like categorising into it". if that's a criteria for deleting categories, then we need to wipe the database & start again :p Lx 121 (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- 2 observations:
- AFAIK an actual list of all – this category rather is a random selection by users feelling like categorising into it – deceased or living people with categories on Commons could easily be generated by a tool on toollabs. FDMS 4 13:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't really feel strongly about whether or not to keep this category and I shall not lose any sleep if its simply deleted but I would offer a couple thoughts. It is fairly difficult process for most people to extract a list of people if they have to mine through what amounts to thousands of categories to get a list of Deceased or Living people. So it makes some sense to me to have a category that associates them together in one place rather than have to search recursively through thousands of years worth of categories when creating a cat that lists them would be easy to automate with a bot. Its certainly easier to use that category if you are running AWB or a bot. Likewise, if we are going to have categories for year of birth and death, X century births and deaths, etc. then we really should have a category for Living people and that really should not redirect to Category:People, which doesn't make much sense. The last time it was suggested about having a Living people category I actually opposed it, because it would be difficult to keep updated, but as I have worked with the birth and death cats more and more and after thinking more and more about how our content interacts with other projects like Wikidata and Wikipedia, I can't help but wonder how we can have one without the other. Reguyla (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- 1. a new element of categorization has to start from SOMEWHERE. we now have the beginning of chronological ordering of our photographs, because some of us started working on it.
- taking your "all-or-nothing" philosophy to its logical conclusion, almost nothing would ever done in categorization; lots of people contributing a little-at-a-time is HOW A WIKI COMMUNITY WORKS.
- 2. yes. some toollab tools would certainly be both nice & useful in sorting the database; BUT if you leave it as just a set of (potential) search/sort tools on labs, & don't put the material into categories HERE, then all of this is HOPELESSLY BURIED, as far as END-USERS are concerned. The average end-user is not going to find or use some toollabs feature; they won't even know to look for it, because they will have no idea that it is there.
- 3. i also note, with all due respect, that you really have said nothing in regards to my basic arguement for the need for these categories, or with regards to the comparison i made with wp/en practices for the same thing.
- Your right in a sense. I only recently found the category and started populating it myself but have been adding a lot to it as I go and have been trying to increase my add category/remove category logic as I find new things. It will take time to populate I grant you but a bot could do it rather quickly and keep it up to date without much effort. Same goes for others. Frankly I can do several thousand a day manually but I am trying to keep it to a more modest couple hundred so I don't flood the recent changes. It will take a while but if multiple people are doing it along with the bots it won't take that long and we'll end up with a better more useful product. Reguyla (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- btw, thank-you for your work on this! i'm sorry that i haven't been categorizing much, recently; but aside from other life matters taking up my time, i've been feeling honestly pretty uninspired to contribute here for some time now... Lx 121 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Your welcome and believe me I completely understand. I feel especially uninspired about editing at ENWP as everyone knows but even here it wears on me. The drama and constant bickering about nonsense and petty shit really gets old. Reguyla (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Are we ready to move forward on this one yet? It looks like there is support for changing the name of this but its still not closed. Reguyla (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your right in a sense. I only recently found the category and started populating it myself but have been adding a lot to it as I go and have been trying to increase my add category/remove category logic as I find new things. It will take time to populate I grant you but a bot could do it rather quickly and keep it up to date without much effort. Same goes for others. Frankly I can do several thousand a day manually but I am trying to keep it to a more modest couple hundred so I don't flood the recent changes. It will take a while but if multiple people are doing it along with the bots it won't take that long and we'll end up with a better more useful product. Reguyla (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
On a slightly related note, my bot is currently adding this category along with a few other common categories to home categories of people. BMacZero (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- To add my actual opinion, I believe that this category should be Keep per Reguyla. Recursive category-searching is a mild inconvenience for power-users and bots, but normal users aren't going to know how to access that functionality at all. I am
Neutral on the naming. BMacZero (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Useless category, info can and should be retrieved by combining "(year) deaths" categories. --WolfD59 (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- We are moving into 6 months of discussion on this. I recommend this be closed. I do not think there is a consensus to delete it but we should rename it. Reguyla (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete. While I have no problem with "persons" in this context, the category is essentially useless. It should all be handled either by death date or a category indicating that the person is dead and a death date should be provided. - Jmabel ! talk 17:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete. A useless category. If anything, it should contain only ".... deaths" categories. --WolfD59 (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- @WolfD59: You already voted to delete it. No need to do it twice. Reguyla (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry... I didn't remember the category, but stumbled upon it today (again), and (again) thought what utter crap. --WolfD59 (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, I figured that's what happened. I don't mind having the category, but I think it needs to be people not persons. Regardless of what we do though, I think having this going for a year is a bit excessive so I hope someone makes a decision soon before we have all been banned by the WMF. Cheers! :-) Reguyla (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry... I didn't remember the category, but stumbled upon it today (again), and (again) thought what utter crap. --WolfD59 (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
AAANNNDDD the category now has 17,000+ entries; as i said i don't care what you name it, but we need to HAVE a category for "dead people by name". i based the name on wikipedia/en "biographies of living persons/people" nomenclature; & i thought that "dead people by name" sounded just a little bit "funny", childish, &/or in bad taste. kind of too much haley joel osment in 'the sixth sense' -- "I see dead people!" but if you want to go with that, or if you can come up with something that sounds better, then fine. Lx 121 (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- The renaming seems uncontroversial, however, I count 3 Keep and 4 Delete votes on the issue of whether the category should even exist in the first place, which is hardly conclusive. I think we need to resolve that issue before we move 17000 subcategories. This probably needs to go to COM:VPP if you want to get anything resembling a consensus on that. BMacZero (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- your count is off; ther are only *3 deletes; jarekt didn't "vote", just commented. Lx 121 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't really feel strongly enough to fight the deletion of the category so if the decision is delete it's fine with me. I certainly think it needs to be renamed at the least. As for discussing it on the Village pump I can submit that it's not a problem. I wasn't the original submitter but it seems reasonable. Reguyla (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
comment - given that nobody on the delete side has addressed the basic, central point here, i.e.: WE NEED TO KEEP TRACK OF WHETHER BIOGRAPHICAL SUBJECTS ARE ALIVE OR DEAD, not least to harmonise with WIKIPEDIA practices; & that the pro-delete point is tl;dr: "oh, this is too much work, we shouldn't bother", repeated by each of the pro-delete commentors, without adding anything substantive to that, AND that the category now has 17,700+ entries, as mentioned above, i kind of think the current state of the debate is against deletion.
"in theory" these discussions aren't supposed to be straw polls, they are supposed to be decided on the merits of the positions presented; & with all due respect, i really don't think the deletionist side has made their case here.
no objection to a village pump discussion. would appreciate a notification & link on my talk page; for whatever reason wmc-wiki is NOT notifying me when new comment are posted "here" anymore.
final note; if the cat does get deleted, & THEN someone figures out that we need this; i am going to officially rotflmao about that, & it'll be a cold day in hell before i help restore the 17,700+ deleted entries. y'all can do that one without me... ^__^
Lx 121 (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
NOTE -- have created a redirect @ Category:Deceased people by name; already had one for Category:Dead people by name; all of which should make it easier for hotcat users to find the right place. as stated above i have NO OBJECTION to a RENAME, though i don't see any of the suggested names as being an improvement. if someone wants to take the "next step" & move the cat, feel free. but i suggest leaving ALL the redirects in place, for findability. also, WELCOME BACK REGUYLA! :) Lx 121 (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Lx 121: Thank you, I just went and changed the Deceased persons by name category to a redirect and retargeted that to the one you created. Once that is done, we should close this year old submission out and if someone thinks we should eliminate the category then they can restart a new discussion. I'll keep an eye on the category but I think Russbot should make the changes for us Automagically in the next couple days. Reguyla (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The 'uncontroversial' rename to Category:Deceased people by name has been done. Seems to be no clear consensus if it should even exist, but the discussion is clearly stale. Reventtalk 23:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:People of the Kingdom of Serbia as per correct English Zoupan (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Done, requesting subcat from Delinker. BMacZero (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Category names should be in English, not Arabic. Stefan4 (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- I understood that "Category names should generally be in English (see Commons:Language policy). However, there are exceptions such as some proper names, biological taxa and names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language (or there is no evidence of usage of an English-language version)." [1]
- بريمو means first class in Egyptian Arabic. We can move the files inside the category to another category named Primo>
- Some categories are not in English as: [2]--Ashashyou (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Looking at the incoherent collection of images in this category, this category is vague and meaningless. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Primo as per suggestion by Ashashyou. Themightyquill (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Move to Category:Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia as per Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia Zoupan (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agree Including it's subcategories. --Smooth_O (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
No opposition in over a year. Moved to Category:Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia along with sub-categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Paintings by production area by country. Move to Category:20th-century paintings from Serbia as per parent categories Zoupan (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- The naming is consistent with other subcats of the parent cat Category:20th-century paintings by country but not with Category:Paintings from Serbia and the grandparent Category:Paintings from Europe. One of these parent categories probably does not belong (one of them seemingly referring to the place the painting was created, the other to the subject of the painting), but I don't know which one. BMacZero (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:20th-century paintings from Serbia and adjusted parallel and parent categories likewise. If someone wants to create a category tree for non-Serbian art in Serbia, they are welcome to do so in Category:Art in Serbia. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Please delete Category:Église Saint-Saturnin de Calvisson and move this category (Category:Église Saint-Saturnin (Calvisson)) to Category:Église Saint-Saturnin de Calvisson. Rationale: duplicate categories for the same church. This category was created first and contains more information, but naming should be Category:Église Saint-Saturnin de Calvisson for consistency with other French churches categories Olivier (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support: Agree, should be merged/moved. --Achim (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral Si vous voulez, mais en toute rigueur Saint saturnin n'est pas de Calvisson mais son église est à Calvisson, il faudrait donc dire, Église Saint-Saturnin à Calvisson. Le mieux ne serait-il pas Église Saint-Saturnin, Calvisson ?--Daniel Villafruela (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- French wp article reads fr:Église Saint-Saturnin de Calvisson. --Achim (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Did some lookup: If one checks for instance Category:Saint Saturnin of Toulouse churches in France or even Category:Churches in Nice or Category:Churches in Lyon as examples of larger municipalities with many entries there can be seen Église xy de ... just as often as Église xy (...), while Église xy, ... is used rarely. So I think there is no need to rename Category:Église Saint-Saturnin (Calvisson) per rationale "consistency with other French churches categories". The one and only (imo weak) argument is the fr:wp entry as said above.--Achim (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Moving to Category:Église Saint-Saturnin, Calvisson as per Daniel VILLAFRUELA and general wikimedia style. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Which is the difference between this cat and Category:Food vending machines? Nastoshka (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, "automat" refers to a type of *restaurant* based around vending machines- rather than the machines themselves- with a distinct history in their own right. (I doubt that (e.g.) a sports centre with a vending machine in the hallway would be considered an "automat").
- While I suspect there may be some overlap, English Wikipedia has separate articles for both automats and for the vending machines themselves.
- That doesn't make an entirely watertight case for keeping the category- Commons is not Wikipedia, its purpose differs as may its needs- but IMHO it does clarify the distinction and strengthens the case for keeping the Automat category. Ubcule (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot @Ubcule: . It does indeed clarify the difference. I opened this discussion, since Automats category is rarely used and most files in it are also categorized in vending machines. --Nastoshka (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Nastoshka: ; I have to disagree that the "Automats" category is "rarely used"- it contains a reasonable number of images, plus a complete subcategory for the FEBO automat chain, all usefully distinct from generic "vending machines".
- Regarding the perceived overlap- yes, sometimes overlap can be a sign of redundant categories, but this isn't always true.
- Here it suggests something different... as soon as you mentioned this problem I realised that I should have made "Automats" a child category of "vending machines". (In addition to the existing category "Fast food restaurants"). I have added this parent category now, and removed one or two images from that parent (since generally images in a child category aren't included in the parent).
- However, the overlap is not as significant as you imply and images can- and should- belong to both (e.g.) Category:Vending machines in the Netherlands *and* Category:Automats, since neither category entirely covers the other. Ubcule (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot @Ubcule: . It does indeed clarify the difference. I opened this discussion, since Automats category is rarely used and most files in it are also categorized in vending machines. --Nastoshka (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Issue is seemingly resolved. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The content all seems to belong in either Buddhist art from India or Buddhist art in India—or perhaps elsewhere under Buddhism in India—so I don‘t see what purpose this category serves. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Content aside, there's no reason for this category and Category:Buddhism in India. Deleted. - 08:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Sole content of one subcat is already in the parent Southern Interior of British Columbia, while another parent is Cariboo Regional District. So I don’t see the purpose for this one. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Just for clarity - By my understanding, en:Cariboo is a loose geographic region of British, whereas en:Caribou Regional District is a designated body that functions as a regional government. In this case, the region and the district more-or-less overlap but they don't always - see Category:Lower Mainland vs Category:Greater Vancouver Regional District. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- One reason to keep them separate is that First Nations/reserves in Cariboo are not generally considered part of Cariboo Regional District, though at this point in time, the category doesn't seem to contain any images of reserves. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I would support, however, a move to Category:Cariboo (region) so as not to be confused with the animal Caribou. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comments This is a huge region with a very prominent role in BC history and in its geography. Those who are not familiar with regional geography of British Columbia should not busybody themselves into "cleaning it up" or demanding definitions. As TMQ notes, it is not appropriate to put Indian reserves or First Nations history into the municipal-type regional district categories as they are not governed by the regional districts; the regional district also includes the Chilcotin region and does NOT include all of the Cariboo region anyway; the region and the regional district do NOT 'more or less overlap', the latter is smaller. That there is so far only one image in this category is due to a lack of categorization on images all over the Commons; there isn't really only one image in this category, or rather one image that belongs in this category; more like dozens that aren't yet labelled with it. Images of or connected to Barkerville, Quesnel, British Columbia, the Cariboo Gold Rush, Williams Lake, 100 Mile House, Lillooet, Clinton, British Columbia and other places including lakes and rivers belong in this category; it should not be deleted or merged by someone who doesn't even know anything about the place.... I don't like the parenthetical disambiguation from the similarly-spelled "Caribou" (and the latter anyway should be categorized IMO as "reindeer" as it's the same animal) for the simple reason of clutter and the different spelling should be sufficient. If there is need of a disambiguation template for a hypothetical "Caribou" category then so be it; this one doesn't need it and shouldn't have it per WP:TITLE and WP:Disambiguation's principles.69.67.176.34 06:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- historical photos as well as FN-related photos similarly do not belong in RD categories as RDs were only invented in 1966-67 and have changeable boundaries which Wikimedians are not likely to keep up on; the only thing that shoudl be in RD categories are things related to the government of the regional disstrict in question e.g. HQ buildings, vehicles, things they manage; NOT geography or history.69.67.176.34 06:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Other parts of the Cariboo are in the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District and in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District; further illustrating that the name of a municipal region and the actual geographical region do not coincide (if ever). This is a cultural-geographic region NOT coincident with the regional district that took its name from it. The Cariboo Land District similarly includes areas to the north that are not part of "the Cariboo".69.67.176.34 06:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- historical photos as well as FN-related photos similarly do not belong in RD categories as RDs were only invented in 1966-67 and have changeable boundaries which Wikimedians are not likely to keep up on; the only thing that shoudl be in RD categories are things related to the government of the regional disstrict in question e.g. HQ buildings, vehicles, things they manage; NOT geography or history.69.67.176.34 06:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Obvious solution*** I just added Category:Barkerville, British Columbia to this category, where it should have been all along, and note Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Cariboo Regional District is inappropriate both because of the missing "the" before the name of the RD, per standard usage (RD names are not like county names) but also because national historic sites are not part of RD governance; they are federal, not provincial (RDs are governed by the Municipal Act of the Province of British Columbia). Like IRs, such places do not belong in RD categories....and any subcat of Category:Cariboo and its sibling cats should likewise include a "the" per standard usage. so there's loads of extant photos in Commons that need aligning/labelling to this cat...I just added quite a bit to the cat as appropriate, among much more that's no doubt out there; I've given enough of my life to Wiki-land and had my face eaten off for it, and will not be doing more than this: preventing a needless deletion or merging or renaming.
Category is now populated, this should be closed as not in need of merger.69.67.176.34 08:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Notes on this family of cats
Note to nominator: rather than seek to delete empty categories, or underpopulated ones as may be the case, why not seek to populate them first? It was probably me who created these region cats; I did the same series in Wikipedia, but due to "other concerns" there never had the time or inclination to add more than perhaps one or two images to them in the process of making those cats; somebody had to do it, and god knows there's nobody in Texas or Ireland or Florida capable of doing so - or knowing which pic of which bit of landscape goes where.
Trust me, the names of these cats were created with good reason - and not, as alleged from Ireland, "original research" - but part of the fabric of British Columbia history and linguistic usage; and please don't mess with them; speculation on what something means is not a valid basis for deletion; there is; there's cases where things belong in three regions at once, being at their intersection. e.g. on things now in the category there's the Riske Creek bridge which is also in the Fraser Canyon and in the Chilcotin; being the point where all three meet. Similarly Lillooet is in the Cariboo region and in the Fraser Canyon and in the Coast Mtns (in a subrange though which doesn't have a cat yet so didn't add that). I could theoretically add Kamloops too and may yet, and Little Fort and Clearwater which are at the SE extreme; and Hixon at the far north of it, though I'll tell you there's other lakes and ranges that belong in it, too; I just don't have the frickin' time or inclination. But this framework was built as infrastructure for things to be added to "if you build it they will come" etc. But the mistaken use of RD cats as all-purpose geography containers isn't workable; and isn't relevant to various things, from mountains and mountain ranges and rivers as well as IRs and, again, images of things or people dating from before 1966-67 when RDs were created (using names drawn from those of the traditional ranges; the names came first and other regions are included in some RDs and others overlap, as explained above.
So please leave cats in Category:Southern Interior of British Columbia and its cousin cats alone; it was built by an informed contributor who knew what he was talking about and is actually from the place. In WP quite a while ago, someone started CfDing one of the cats (the corresponding one for Chilcotin) and it took two more CfDs for "the community" to "get it" and it wound up back where it started.
Asking contributing users where photos are, and informing them of available categories, would be a much more useful task for active editors here to be doing than fiddling around with cat names. Adding information to photos already out there would be much more productive... some where I added teh Cariboo or another cat tonight were found by following username-links in the contribution info; I note thet apparent absence of the Nechako Country and Omineca Country cats for use on some of User:BillPoser's image of Nakazdli Church, which had only some code-name cat on it (Category:Central Interior of British Columbia would do, and Category:Dakelh oh and Category:Churches in British Columbia. Other contributors names can similarly be followed up on; though in bposer's case it wasn't necessary as you had an actual British Columbian who recognized his photos' locations huh? Too bad there's not more of enough around :| but I've had enough, and done too much tonight already.69.67.176.34 08:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- No one sought to delete the category. The nominator, Odysseus1479, simply asked (rather politely, I'd say) what it's purpose was, because it's unclear. And it needs to be clear, not only to those who know about BC geography, but also those who want to learn. To make it more clear, I would propose we
- Add a note to the category explaining its purpose, especially versus Category:Cariboo Regional District
- Change the name to Category:The Cariboo or even better, Category:The Cariboo (geographic region).
- If there are other similar regional categories, we could do the same for them. Does that work for you, old friend? =) - Themightyquill (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Reply Adding "the" to the region name is against what DISAMBIG says; the category name in WP is "Cariboo" and has never been contested. If it were to be added, then "the Lower Mainland", "the Okanagan", "the Chilcotin [Country]", "the Fraser Canyon", "the Coast of British Columbia", "the Interior of British Columbia", "the Gulf Islands" etc.....this is against TITLE standards, plain and smple. Also, re the Cariboo (and the Chilcotin), the "the" is optional; many from those particular regions might say "I miss living in Cariboo" or "when I first lived in Chilcotin" i.e. they can be used that way; but common usage modern and historical is with the "the"; this is not the case with the sister-regions like the East and West Kootenay or the Okanagan or the Nechako or Omineca or the Peace Country; none of them are used without the "the" (likewise the Cariboo Regional District, which requires "the" before it in standard usage; so your proposed "the Cariboo" name behooves "the Cariboo Regional District" as the main cat name there (and "the" should be added in any of its "FOO in the Cariboo Regional District" not "FOO in Cariboo Regional District). That's what needs fixing, adding "the" where it's needed, not where it's NOT needed. This cat also should not have been a subcat of the CRD; if so, then the TNRD and SLRD should also be parent cats; if anything the CRD cat should be a subcat of the Cariboo cat, not t he other way around....if people don't know what a cat name refers to, easy enough to click on it and find out; what is the category that "Caribou" is in anyway? As noted that animal is the same as "reindeer".69.67.176.34 18:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Also per your overly long and anti-TITLE "The Cariboo (geographic region)" it's not just a geographic region, it's a cultural one, a sense of identity and shared culture; and contains various different geographies; unlike the Robson Valley, which is defined by the Rocky Mountain Trench/upper Fraser basin, or the Okanagan or Fraser Canyon or Nechako or Stikine Country, which are defined by drainages and specific landforms, the Cariboo geographically includes different drainages and is not one valley or plateau; ditto with the Lillooet Country.
- the long-ago mistaken wiki-application of regional districts as catchall subdivisions of British Columbia was a bad idea to start with and was done by other Canadians who presumed they were like Ontarian or Quebec or NB/NS counties; they are not; BC is a layer cake of administrative divisions, some sharing names but with different roles; as you may remember about the Lower Mainland and why a certain region (policing I think it was) included the Sunshine Coast and Squamish, which are NOT part of the geographic Lower Mainland; As I said above, this category system was created with good reason, and the names likewise chosen with good reason. More useful work than fiddling with the name would be continuing to sort uncatted images and populate categories; not concoct speculative confusionjs and try to fix them without really knowing what they mean.69.67.176.34 19:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The one valid disambiguation taht falls in a pattern with other cats is Category:Cariboo Country. Chilcotin Country, Lillooet Country and ultimately there should be Thompson Country and the aforementioned Peace, Nechako and Omineca - and Bulkley, Skeena, Nass, Stikine, Atlin and Cassiar Countries; this should solve the "reindeer problem".69.67.176.34 07:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- I thought you had suggested adding "The" but to be honest, I skimmed over your wall of text. I've done so again this time. Nothing personal. It seems you are proposing Category:Cariboo Country which works for me. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- The "wall of text" slag is boring and repetitive to hear; it says to me that people who say that don't have either patience or full reading ability; when there are complicated issues and explanations needed because of others writing in po-mo shorthand so-called "concise" making gaffes and mistakes, full-English is needed. This is one big problem in wiki-land - shallow logic combined with the limitations of semi-literacy and that oh-so-modern impatience, especially when being asked to listen to (a) reason and (b) explanations by someone actually informed on the subject. Clarity isn't often the result of one-line answers in reply to simplistic one-line questions based on speculation and confecture. TLDR and WOT should be ditched as wiki-principles; they limit discussion and are inherently NPA and AGF. For usage examples of "Cariboo Country" see here. NB I don't know if WMCommons cats should conform to those in Wikipedia, but in Wikipedia that cat-title is to be based off the main-article title - which in WP is "Cariboo". But remember, "most common usage" is simply "Cariboo" not "Cariboo Country" which is why the Wikipedia title is what it is. this template includes all the regions in this 'family'. "Kootenays" btw could be "Kootenay Country" but like "Cariboo Country" it's not all that modern of a common usage; "Okanagan Country" is also an extant usage but spans the border with the US.69.67.176.34 18:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why you even fielded "Caribou" as an issue as that is at Category:Rangifer tarandus. No possible confusion.69.67.176.34 19:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Because if someone wants to search for Caribou but mispells it slightly, they currently end up with a category with no disambiguation? It's not essential, it was just an idea - one that had the benefit of clearly distinguishing the region category from the animal category and the district category. Just trying to make things clear and simple for everyone. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Catnames that actually do need fixing
As above, the missing "the" is very jarring and a-stylistic in [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cultural_heritage_monuments_in_British_Columbia these catnames, and they need to be fixed. No doubt there are similar subcats of RD cats that have similarly wonked titles; and to me the issue remains as to whether or not cultural heritage monuments belong in RD subcategories at all - but that's what happens when someone from outside BC creates cats without knowing anything about the subject or the normal usage for such names. Cultural heritage monuments administered by an RD perhaps belong in them but RDs have no role in culture or heritage.69.67.176.34 19:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't want to argue with you because I'm pretty neutral on the topic. I certainly accept the logic of your view, but I also accept that RD categories have the advantage of clear definite borders, which historic regions lack. Many people... maybe even most people in BC... don't know much about the regional geography of BC, but they certainly know which regional district they live in, and it's always very clear from a wikipedia article which regional district a city is in. Categorizing categories only according to information possessed by experts makes it a) difficult for others to categorize their images correctly and b) more difficult for people without that expert knowledge to find what they are looking for. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
RDs have changeable boundaries is partly the point of why they're not useful except in reference to municipal members of them and actual institutions operated by them. For scientific documentation on e.g. lakes or mountains, it's pretty much standard to refer to which Forest District they're in; the main provincial reference to a system with permanently fixed boundaries is the Land District system; the same reference is used for CGNDB as for the provincial BC Names; but to researchwhere a given landform or other 'object' is in the regional district scheme of things takes original research. Only RD-related research documentation references the RDs; news reports do not use them unless something to do with the RD government is concerned. "Cariboo", "Okanagan", "Fraser Canyon" and so on actually do have very clear meanings than you realize and user-recognition for British Columbian contributors; RDs take looking up i.e. original research and extra time. Ignoring the historical regions is a surefire way to seek to eradicate them; as a certain admin from Ireland went off half-cocked about them being original research just because it was me who created those categories is just systemic bias as well as AGF/prejudice against an 'expert' actually from the places in question.
RDs are not workable for classifying lakes, rivers and historical events and institutions and in particular native contexts; sources will not ref the regional district but invariably or almost the historic region or Forest Districts or BCGNIS/BC Names/Land Districts or re landforms with the parenty landform e.g. mountains within mountain ranges within mountain ranges. Labelling Mt Waddington as being in the Waddington RD is pointless; the RD's building inspectors will never get there; and because it's at an apex of RD boundaries, (including the Cariboo Regional District), it would be in three RD categories if those were used to classify it; its proper classification is by mountain range; it's not in the Chilcotin nor on the Coast,also; the mountain ranges often constitute regions in themselves (though Ireland maintained that since they're not official they have no validity and are OR touse for classyfing lakes and rivers, when in fact there is no such requirement in WP:Geog or WP:Mtns. Or as in the case of hospitals, the health region; unlike Ontario where health is governed/organized by county, that's not the case in BC. Likewise with schools (school districts often do not coincide with RD boundaries). It's better for Wikipedians and readders from outside BC to come to terms with teh actual regions in common use rather than to let them presume that the RD system is teh only way that BC is subdivided "for administrative purposes". Thjey're one of the weakest forms of regional governance in BC; and not commonly use as a general reference for where somewhere is. Except, rather horribly at times, in Wikipedia.69.67.176.34 20:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- As I said, I understand your argument, but I also see the problems with categorizing things exclusively by historical regions. Yes, RD boundaries are changeable. Yes, RD boundaries don't apply well to historical events. The same is true for provincial/state/national boundaries. Historical regions have the great advantage of being longer term and less changeable (though hardly permanently fixed throughout time) but they're also blurry at the edges. I've never seen a map showing the exact lines where one historic region ends and another begins. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's because many of them are obvious boundaries; the spine of the Cariboo Mountains on the east side of the Cariboo, the line of the Fraser on its west (the habit of calling the Chilcotin as part of the Cariboo came from electoral district agglomerations; but the Fraser is the dividing line) and the line of the CPR on the south; we don't need lines on the map because the map is the boundaries; the Okanagan defined by the lake-basin and adjoining highlands, the Columbia Country by being the limn of the Columbia River from Arrow Lakes up around Big Bend to Golden, the Lower Mainland by it being lower than the rest of the mainland and on the coastal side of the mountains. Some places are in more than one region, as constituting the boundary point or where they overlap; Osoyoos is in the Okanagan but also in the Boundary Country; Hope is both Fraser Canyon and Lower Mainland/Upper Fraser Valley; East and West Kootenay are defined by which side of Kootenay Lake (though I'd tend to consider places on either side of Kootenay Lake as being in the West Kootenay). The Lillooet Country and Chilcotin Country pretty much match the territories of the St'at'imc (Lillooet) and Tshilqot'in (Chilcotin) peoples. With certain exceptions e.g. the Lillooet and Chilcotin and Cariboo which are collections of drainages bound by culture/identity and a geographic continuity, almost all of teh regions on the template linked above are defined by teh physical geography and obvious as such. Maps of BC location towns and also mountains and lakes by RD boundaries are entirely original research and "look weird", as "we" (British Columbians) don't think in terms of those boundaries; we think in terms of the landscape... and we ahve lots of it. The historical regions exist for a reason and should not be ignored or bypassed because someone from somewhere else demands a discreet definition - when they don't know anything about the terrain or its history. That should be respected per AGF and long-standing presence - what DOES need doing is fixing the bad syntax of the subcats e.g. the missing 'the' in scads of them...
- As I said, I understand your argument, but I also see the problems with categorizing things exclusively by historical regions. Yes, RD boundaries are changeable. Yes, RD boundaries don't apply well to historical events. The same is true for provincial/state/national boundaries. Historical regions have the great advantage of being longer term and less changeable (though hardly permanently fixed throughout time) but they're also blurry at the edges. I've never seen a map showing the exact lines where one historic region ends and another begins. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- One big problem with RDs as divisions is their clumsy and oft-misleading names. Inhabited places in Mount Waddington Regional District are nowhere near Mt Waddington; the RD system and some electoral district names have spawned names like "Central Kootenay", the three RDs covering the Okanagan, and inclusion of part of the Cariboo and the Lower Fraser Canyon in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District. Kitimat-Stikine RD barely includes any of the STikine basin; similarly the non-RD Stikine Region includes NONE of the Stikine basin now that Dease Lake is in the RDKS; towns in the Similkameen and Boundary are not in the Okanagan but would be construed as such if the RD including them were to be the descriptor. And there's NOTHING weirder for 'someone who knows' to look up a location in the middle of e.g. the Monashee or Purcell Mountains and see "Columbia-Shuswap E" (for electoral area E); using EAs as map subdivisions is a bad habit that Googlemaps and others picked up from Wiki-world's mistaken/miconstrued use of RDs and EAs. Again, sources generally do not refer to which RD something is in but to which Forest District or Tourism region (particularly provincial parks) or by landform/region. Putting something in RD categories that doesn't belong in them is mis-categorization pure and simple, and it's Wiki-land's pretentious and mistaken use of the RD boundaries to classify things with is pure and simple original research as well as not useful at all.69.67.176.34 05:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- closure?
So is this going to get moved to Category:Cariboo Country or not? Or is reading through rationale explanation of what and where the Cariboo is and why it's called what it is too tough to do? And no action on adding "the" to RD and region subcat names where needed?
I'll add a description of the region to the existing category; there are mostly only debatable issues about the southeastern limits, and of the southern part Category:Bonaparte Country might be added as a subcat for areas of the plateau from Bridge and Bonapart Lakes down to the Thompson River; Category:Thompson Country may exist, Category:Fraser Canyon certainly does; both are parallel cats as overlapping; the Category:Chilcotin Country cat is somewhat parallel but might best be mentioned in Cariboo Country's lede but that area is often considered "Cariboo" because of long-standing electoral district and forest district namings. Discussions about this in Cariboo FB groups are ongoing...but this is a bona fide region name in its own right; "Cariboo Country" and "Chilcotin Country" and various others are kinda anachronistic as in common speech "the Cariboo" and "the Chilcotin" are the norms.
one of the ugly things about wiki-world is it takes so long to get meaningful actions to get done; and a lot of meaningless and largely irrelevant time-wasting issues are raised instead... to no outcome.69.67.176.34 19:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Cariboo Country. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Can somebody define the diffrence between this cat and Category:Secret intelligence. Sanandros (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think "Secret intelligence" should be redirected to "Intelligence (information gathering)". -- Deadstar (msg) 09:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yea but can u give also a exact definition?--Sanandros (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Redirected Category:Secret intelligence to Category:Intelligence (information gathering) as per Deadstar. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I propose this category for deletion. I do not see any meaning in it. Marsupium (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Many other virtual reconstitutions of dispersed polyptychs might be in this category. In example of pictures would expose their original state :
- File:Maesta reconstruction.jpg
- File:PolyptyqueGriffoniProbable.png : The Griffoni polyptych, in its virtual reconstitution by the art critic Roberto Longhi in 1935 in his essay “Officina Ferrarese”,
- File:Polittico di San Pietro (Perugino).jpg
- File:Polyptyque de Sant'Agostino.jpg
- File:ChartreusePavie.jpg
- File:Rafael, Predella Colonna.jpg
- File:Vierge aux saints, reconstitution.jpg
- Perhaps the word reconstitution is't the good word. Which one is better ? (But the expression Reconstitution is used on many books : Roberto Longhi in Officina Ferrarese ; Diane Cole Ahl in Fra Angelico, Phaidon, 2008 ISBN 978-0-7148-5858-6 Reconstitution de la composition originelle, p. 226) Virtual reconstitution (in painting) ? For WGA Digitized reconstruction of panels. (And in french « Reconstitution virtuelle », ou « Reconstitution hypothétique » quand des éléments ne sont pas certains).--- Salutations. louis-garden pinXit (On en cause) 08:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- This category seems to make a lot of sense as a container for all later reconstructions of lost works of art, as the above links show it. Best, --Catarella (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- (+1) Good category for lost works of art-- Adri08 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I think you are right. When I started the discussion here, there were only two files in the category, one having nothing to do with the reconstruction of artworks. As for me the discussion can be closed. Thanks a lot for the additions to the category and the comments, --Marsupium (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Today they are 27 files and 10 pages in this category. I think you put out the flag now. --- Salutations. louis-garden pinXit (On en cause) 15:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for all the improvements, especially for removing the nonsensical Category:Pala di San Marco (Angelico). At the moment the category seems to deal with polyptychs only. So I propose to rename it Category:Reconstruction of polyptychs. An other possibility could be to open it up for all artworks by replacing Category:Polyptychs with Category:Art works. Salutations, --Marsupium (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Today they are 27 files and 10 pages in this category. I think you put out the flag now. --- Salutations. louis-garden pinXit (On en cause) 15:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- This category seems to make a lot of sense as a container for all later reconstructions of lost works of art, as the above links show it. Best, --Catarella (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Reconstruction of polyptychs as per Marsupium. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Rename. These aren't "portal cranes". I don't know if the original creator was aware that "portal" isn't the adjective form of "port"? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry Andy, but 'portal' here means having doorway-like features. They are described as portal cranes in English Wikipedia: Stothert & Pitt#Electric dock cranes.
- According to the Commons Category:Portal cranes they ... are a form of crane where a large rectangular framework forms a flat-topped arch with a gantry across the top. This whole portal frame can move in one direction by a railway truck under each end. These cranes have four legs which end in rail bogies (American English: 'trucks') which allow them to move along the dockside. Between the legs they straddle a railway line. As they only span a single track the cranes themselves only rotate; they do not need to traverse across several tracks as is seen on larger portal cranes. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I hope this doesn't come as a shock, but WP isn't a RS for definitions. That article can't even get the number of cranes right!
- These are not portal cranes. Yes, a portal crane straddles something and may move (not all portal cranes move, but most do). However it's inherent in the portal crane concept that they can lift the things they're straddling. The Stothert & Pitt cranes in Bristol are jib cranes: they can't lift something directly beneath them. They are not portal cranes. Here's an illustration of the sort of designs that are portal cranes. http://www.konecranesusa.com/equipment/portal-cranes Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- You're right, Wikipedia isn't perfect when it comes to definitions so let's look outside:
- The Floating Harbour : a landscape history of Bristol City Docks, (Lord J & Southam J., Redcliffe Press (1983)) descibes them as 'portal cranes'
- The United States Department of Labor defines them as having a rotating upperstructure, hoist machinery, and boom mounted on top of a structural gantry which may ... have travel capability. The gantry legs or columns usually ... allow passage of traffic beneath the gantry.
- Yo-Pi Port Machinery are offering for sale several modern equivalents which they describe as portal cranes.
- So there are several reasons for describing them as I have. What are you proposing the category be renamed as? Geof Sheppard (talk)
- You're right, Wikipedia isn't perfect when it comes to definitions so let's look outside:
- The parent cat Category:Portal cranes also contains many cranes that resemble the ones found in this category. BMacZero (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Per Geof's research, this appears to be the correct name. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Needs move to Category:King County Water Taxi, the official name of the service and also the name of its Wikipedia entry. SounderBruce 03:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- That is the current name, but was not prior to 2009; I believe that the bulk of the photos we have date from a time when "Elliott Bay Water Taxi" was indeed the right name. If we are changing the category name, then at the very least we need an explanatory note so that no one thinks the descriptions in the images are inaccurate. - Jmabel ! talk 10:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Rename. When categories are named for institutions, we routinely rename them when the institution gets renamed. Most images at Category:Asbury University were taken when it was still "Asbury College", for example, and most or all images in Category:Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota and its subcats were taken when it was still "Shannon County, South Dakota". A simple hatnote should be enough to ensure that no one thinks the descriptions in the images are inaccurate. Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Then maybe Category:King County Water Taxi (West Seattle-Downtown)? Because there is also service from Vashon to Downtown, which would deserve a distinct category if we have pictures. Or we could have Category:King County Water Taxi and make Category:King County Water Taxi (West Seattle-Downtown) a subcat. - Jmabel ! talk 16:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Nyttend and SounderBruce: Are you okay with Jmabel's suggestion? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- It would be more appropriate to name the subcategory Category:West Seattle Water Taxi (the official route name) and the parent category Category:King County Water Taxi. SounderBruce 15:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm reluctantly OK with that. - Jmabel ! talk 15:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm slightly confused by the alternate proposal. Rename to the current name, whatever it is. Nyttend (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm reluctantly OK with that. - Jmabel ! talk 15:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- It would be more appropriate to name the subcategory Category:West Seattle Water Taxi (the official route name) and the parent category Category:King County Water Taxi. SounderBruce 15:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Nyttend and SounderBruce: Are you okay with Jmabel's suggestion? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Done: renamed to Category:West Seattle Water Taxi. --ƏXPLICIT 01:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I doubt that this category is necessary besides Category:World War I preserved battlefields or specific battle/battlefield categories. In addition, "modern" is a relative term and does not describe the intended content or time period distinctive enough. Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- - @ "modern" is a relative term and does not describe the intended content or time period distinctive enough - totally agree. I chose "modern" for want of a better word.
- - Having that said, the term preserved battlefield would suggest to me that the landscape of the battlefield is more or less left as it was by the end of the conflict, i.e. (in the case of the Western Front in WW I) with visible shell holes and trench systems. While the pictures I contributed of the Ypres Salient do show the sites where specific engangements took place, these sites are in many cases not preserved as they were in 1918 (most often because the local farmers returned to farming the land). I wanted to highlight that difference in the category title.
- - Any suggestions how to avoid the dilemma? Best wishes ViennaUK (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps "Former WW I battlefields in 2015" (or whatever year the pictures were taken)? --Rudolph Buch (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think that makes sense, Rudolph Buch. Would you like to undertake the necessary moves? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps "Former WW I battlefields in 2015" (or whatever year the pictures were taken)? --Rudolph Buch (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:World War I battlefields in the 21st century. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Bos primigenius taurus is a synonym of Bos taurus, the former should be deleted and files recategorized. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Looking on wikipedia Cattle page : Now, these have been reclassified as one species, Bos taurus, with three subspecies: Bos taurus primigenius, Bos taurus indicus, and Bos taurus taurus.This is a subspecie, not a synonym. Regards Jiel (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- But this category only has a few images, almost all cattle in category:cattle belong to Bos primigenius taurus. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@Editor abcdef and Jiel: Can we move it to Category:Bos taurus primigenius if it's a subspecies? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes we can and we should, but I am not an expert in zoology, so I am bot sure abou the subspecy Jiel (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. If someone wants to open a discussion at Category:Bos primigenius, that's fine. Themightyquill (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Don't see the point of this category, Bos taurus taurus is basically cattle, excluding Bos taurus indicus, which has it's own category. The former is useless since it only has 4 files, when almost all files in the category cattle fits the bill. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Any opposition to redirecting to Category:Cattle ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Cattle -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Where does the name "ledger stones" come from? en.wikipedia doesn't know it, and it seems to be rather rarley used anywhere (but here on the Commons). Even worse is the big subcategory tree "Figured ledger stones". This phrase (or the singular) has zero results in Google Books... --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with nom. I also noticed this problem recently. Olivier (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ledger stone is standard English architectural term for a flat memorial stone set into the floor of a church. It can just have an inscription, but often also includes an achievement of arms carved in relief. I agree that figured ledger stones is a rather clumsy term. Suggestions welcome. The trouble is that ledger stones with engraved or relief figures of the deceased are not very common in the UK, but seem widely used in other Germanic/Scandinavian countries. Perhaps there is a Continental term for them. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
In German the word "Grabplatte" (literally 'grave panel') is used for that kind of stones but it can also refer to stones of the same kind vertically attached on walls of churches and graveyards, and often to plain stone panels covering graves in cemeteries as well. Thus, for native speakers of German "ledger stone" might be a bit complicated to understand — even more as 'ledger stones' are hard to separate from 'epitaphs', as in these countries many sculptured memorial stones considered as epitaphs don't have any inscription (see de:Epitaph and the contents of the relevant Commons' "epitaph" categories).
In my opinion, there a 3 options:
- Using "ledger stones" for memorial stones on floors in churches only - independent from what they show (as the term is described by Verica Atrebatum above).
- Categorizing ALL ledger stones and epitaphs without text as "ledger stones", i.e. ledger stones are death monuments horizontally or vertically attached to floors or walls inside and outside of churches and do not have inscriptions.
- Summarizing ledger stones into "epitaphs" and making "ledger stones" redirect to "epitaphs".
The latter I won't suggest, but in any case, the cat "figured ledger stones" should be dissolved.
In the online edition of Collins Dictionary there is no entry "ledger stone", neither in the one of Merriam-Webster (a comprehensive standard dictionary of American English). So the term obviously is a very specific one to architecture; that might be a reason for deciding which option to choose - unless somebody else has a better idea. I would prefer #2 because of two reasons:
- An epitaph in its proper sense is a genre of literature and therefore needs words.
- This formal criterion to separate ledger stones from epitaphs - text vs. without text - would be a solution independent from language respectively from the semantics and understanding of the relevant words in the different languages which are used for these objects (because meanings of words of different languages for the same thing never are exactly the same). --Eweht (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that figured ledger stones should be deleted, but I didn't like ledger stones and epitaphs mixed up. To add two more things to your above explanations to distinguish: Ledger stones are made of stone, epitaphs are sometimes made of stone and are often made of carved wood or can even be paintings, 2nd: are ledger stones Grabplatten that is they are the topmost part covering a grave (today often arranged at the walls of churches to prevent them from being damaged by feet), an epitaph is primarily a memorial that very often is not a part of a grave. --Achim (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Concur with Verica Atrebatum. 'Ledger stone' or 'Ledgerstone' is a recognized term and memorial element. En WP not having specific reference to it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve recognition here... there are many things missing on Wikipedia. The Church of England uses the term, for both plain, incised, and inset brass plate church floor slabs per... perhaps we could ask them for a definitive view on all this. When it comes to "Figured ledger stones" (a confusing term), it seems it was meant to suggest those that contained slightly raised or incised images of the dead, which are never very high relief for the floor or people would trip over them. If the sub-cat needs to stay, a better term would be 'Figurative ledger stones'. However, where do we put those that have both figurative imagery and text ? And how would we re-cat those that are vertical if we restrict them to floor slabs ? Acabashi (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ledger stone is a term most frequently found in writings of 19th century English antiquarians. No alternative exists to describe such items as far as I know. w:Ledger lines (2 parallel lines) are usually found on them, which is the same term used for the several lines on which music is written. Is there a clue there? Also possibly with accountancy ledgers, used for recording figures. My Collins Dictionary states "Ledger, a flat horizontal slab of stone...probably from leggen to lay", language not specified. Something laying flat seems to be a common theme. I think they are always placed flat inset into a church floor, or on the top of a w:chest tomb, never against a wall (unless re-positioned so in a church restoration). Re "Figured ledger stones", these would include ledger stones with w:monumental brasses inset, mediaeval ones are quite common in English churches. The category appears to be useful and I don't think the terminology is too difficult to follow. I have created a stub WP article w:Ledger stone with some of the above points included, few sources at present.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC))
The word ledger is defined in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as "a flat stone slab covering a grave". The French translation is : dalle funéraire. A dalle is horizontal; a stèle is vertical. I think the category should be kept, but I see that the French Wikipedia lacks a proper typology of tombs. Baronnet (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Can we close this discussion down now? The discussion started with "Where does the name "ledger stones" come from? en.wikipedia doesn't know it..". WP does now know it, as a new article has been created, which attempts to address some of the matters raised. The existing cats seem fine to me.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC))
- Lobsterthermidor, thanks for your hint and for reminding us. I linked en:Ledger stone via d:Q23304072. I think per above we can assume consensus to merge the content of Category:Figured ledger stones one level up or into other subcats as nearly all ledger stones are figured ones. So in my opinion it doesn't make sense to keep Category:Figured ledger stones. --Achim (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not so sure. This seems to be a continental European phenomenon, for example Category:Figured ledger stones in Germany has 154 images with a further 6 cats containing 37 images. These are much more elaborate "figures" than ones I know of in England. Seems non-UK users feel a need to have an extra level of cat. As commons is English language, we don't have a better word to describe these items, and clearly the German word can't be used because the French and Poles have them too. I say leave as is.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC))
- Not so sure I'm afraid. Looking at Category:Ledger stones in Germany: all but very few entries would fit in Category:Figured ledger stones in Germany. So Category:Ledger stones in Germany would keep one cat only (the figured one) and maybe 4 or 5 files (didn't count them). Therefore I suggested moving one level up. --Achim (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- For me the slight problem lies with the word "figured", which in art can mean having representation, flat or sculpted, of a human being, but has other meanings, including ornamented and shaped, which means most slabs fall into the "figured" cat. 'Figured' has further meanings in other contexts as Lobsterthermidor points out. "Figurative"—pictorial, illustrative and representational—also has crossover meanings. "Ledger stones with human imagery" describes what has been added to this cat, and might be more nailed-down as a specific description, but might sound a bit clunky. If "Figured ledger stones" stays—it seems to be our own WM made up phrase—it might be wise to fully describe what we mean by the term on the cat page. Acabashi (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Acabashi@Achim55@Joshbaumgartner: 6 year old CFD. If I am correct it seems that the term "figured ledger stone" is suspicious and should be avoided. If so, then these categories should be deleted once the content is upmerged into "Ledger stones in Foo country". These categories are:
- Category:Figured ledger stones
- Category:Figured ledger stones in Alsace
- Category:Figured ledger stones in Austria
- Category:Figured ledger stones in Belgium
- Category:Figured ledger stones in Denmark
- Category:Figured ledger stones in England
- Category:Figured ledger stones in France
- Category:Figured ledger stones in Germany
- Category:Figured ledger stones in Havelberg Cathedral
- Category:Figured ledger stones in Hungary
- Category:Figured ledger stones in Italy
- Category:Figured ledger stones in Mary Magdalene Church in Wrocław
- Category:Figured ledger stones in Poland
- Category:Figured ledger stones in Scotland
- Category:Figured ledger stones in Sweden
- Category:Figured ledger stones in Warsaw
- Category:Figured ledger stones in Wrocław
- Category:Figured ledger stones in the Czech Republic
- Category:Figured ledger stones in the United Kingdom Estopedist1 (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Acabashi@Achim55@Joshbaumgartner: 6 year old CFD. If I am correct it seems that the term "figured ledger stone" is suspicious and should be avoided. If so, then these categories should be deleted once the content is upmerged into "Ledger stones in Foo country". These categories are:
- For me the slight problem lies with the word "figured", which in art can mean having representation, flat or sculpted, of a human being, but has other meanings, including ornamented and shaped, which means most slabs fall into the "figured" cat. 'Figured' has further meanings in other contexts as Lobsterthermidor points out. "Figurative"—pictorial, illustrative and representational—also has crossover meanings. "Ledger stones with human imagery" describes what has been added to this cat, and might be more nailed-down as a specific description, but might sound a bit clunky. If "Figured ledger stones" stays—it seems to be our own WM made up phrase—it might be wise to fully describe what we mean by the term on the cat page. Acabashi (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not so sure I'm afraid. Looking at Category:Ledger stones in Germany: all but very few entries would fit in Category:Figured ledger stones in Germany. So Category:Ledger stones in Germany would keep one cat only (the figured one) and maybe 4 or 5 files (didn't count them). Therefore I suggested moving one level up. --Achim (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not so sure. This seems to be a continental European phenomenon, for example Category:Figured ledger stones in Germany has 154 images with a further 6 cats containing 37 images. These are much more elaborate "figures" than ones I know of in England. Seems non-UK users feel a need to have an extra level of cat. As commons is English language, we don't have a better word to describe these items, and clearly the German word can't be used because the French and Poles have them too. I say leave as is.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC))
- Lobsterthermidor, thanks for your hint and for reminding us. I linked en:Ledger stone via d:Q23304072. I think per above we can assume consensus to merge the content of Category:Figured ledger stones one level up or into other subcats as nearly all ledger stones are figured ones. So in my opinion it doesn't make sense to keep Category:Figured ledger stones. --Achim (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I Support this proposal. --Achim55 (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as is, after seven years of discussion. - PKM (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- And English Wikipedia article is , since October 2015. PKM (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Could Category:Figured ledger stones (etc.) become Category:Ledger stones with human figures (etc.)? There seem to be enough of these that it is an intersection worth distinguishing, rather than add several categories to each. - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledger_stone exists and "Where does the name "ledger stones" come from? en.wikipedia doesn't know it" is resolved Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Not done: per consensus. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)