Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2018/11
Empty category. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Duplicate of an other category titled in English J. N. Squire (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Another category? Which one? Regards. Peter17 (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Nomination created by accident, when the intention was this one: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/11/Category:Salon du livre et de la presse jeunesse. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Bad title, re-created as Category:Frames of heraldic shields Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Empty, and nominated by creator. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Unuseful empty category. Created in 2014, it never took up. The only content was a wrongful inclusion of Category:Trinitarians, which relates to a Catholic order among many others, not the "doctrine" of Trinitarianism. See also Category:Holy Trinity which has related content. Place Clichy 16:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Please delete cat. Name mis-spelled, replaced by Category:Strange (de Knockyn) arms & all images moved manually Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. @Lobsterthermidor: Next time please use {{Bad name}}. Typos don't require discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, will do that.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
This category should be removed, its unclear title does not correspond to its content.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
For example, Watchduck had stored the adjacent image in the following categories:
- Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style August 2018
- Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style;_3-fold August 2018
Here is its current categorization:
- Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with icosahedron
- Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with icosahedron hull
- Category:Six regular polyhedra with icosahedral symmetry; colorful 3-fold SVG
- Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with dodecahedron
- Category:Great stellated dodecahedron; colorful 3-fold SVG; with dodecahedron hull
“Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids; colorful 3-fold_SVG; with_dodecahedron” ends with “dodecahedron”, does that mean “with Platonic dodecahedron”?
“Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids; colorful 3-fold_SVG; with_dodecahedron_hull” ends with “dodecahedron hull”, does that mean “with a convex hull of twelve faces”?
Arthur Baelde (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- This is yet another duplicate of the old discussion. I have copied your post there and will not respond here. Watchduck (quack) 17:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Grouping similar discussions at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; Baelde style; 3-fold. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
This category should be removed, its unclear title does not correspond to its content.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- This is yet another duplicate of the old discussion. I have copied your post there and will not respond here. Watchduck (quack) 17:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Grouping similar discussions at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; Baelde style; 3-fold. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
This category should be removed, notably because Category:Convex hull already exists.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- This is yet another duplicate of the old discussion. I have copied your post there and will not respond here. Watchduck (quack) 17:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Grouping similar discussions at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; Baelde style; 3-fold. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Isn't the same photographer than Category:Photographs by Greg Gjerdingen ? Sammyday (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- They both link to the same photostream. Unless there are some non-photo images by that author, they are redundant. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Move the contents of this one to the old category. My apologies for not checking before creating the category. Hiàn (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Photographs by Greg Gjerdingen. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
She's empty. Sammyday (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion by creator. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Not a category page, no references and advertising. L293D (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Done: advert. --Ronhjones (Talk) 22:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Another Pivox classic. Many pics of Atatürk included are not photographs, no larger Turkish people cat, etc. Do we have to assign guardians for certain users to follow their categorization? Alright, criticize me... E4024 (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. All subcats here should contain only photographic portraits and their names should specify "photographs". If they aren't so named, or they contain non-photgraph portraits, then they don't belong in a portrait photograph category. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
This is a passive agressive complaint about user behaviour not a problem with the category. It doesn't belong here. Please make your complaint at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems - Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Useless category. "Semafori" means "Traffic signals" in Italian and exists already the category "Traffic signals in Italy" . The only 3 files that there were in category "Semafori" have already been moved in the proper catgory Civitas13 (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Closing -- cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
obvious self-promotion, out of scope, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Svgemanagement. Te750iv (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Te750iv: So long as the photos exist here on commons, it makes sense to keep them in one category. If you have them deleted as out of scope, the category can also be deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was deleted by Jon Kolbert (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes). Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
She's empty. Sammyday (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Close: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
spelled wrong Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. @Villy Fink Isaksen: Cases like this don't really need discussion: you can request deletion by using the {{Bad name}} template. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
This category can be deleted. The formerly contained file shows galls on Alnus glutinosa by Acalites brevitarsus Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Close: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
My mistake. Duplication with Category:Yaackov Bodo Ldorfman (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The result was deleted by Krd (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Is this a duplicate of Category:Büchenbronn? Auntof6 (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes.I did not seen the Category:Büchenbronn --Klaus Martin Bardey (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I've redirected this category to the older one. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Close: cat is a duplicate and has been redirected. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
To be consistent with the other subcategories Category:Logos of companies by industry, I suggest renaming this category to "Logos of law firms". -- numbermaniac (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree All the other parallel categories are in the "Logos of x" format. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Close: category renamed and sort key adjusted. Redirect left, but delete if desired. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Not a good category title. Other than correcting "Yildirim" to "Yıldırım" we must find a better expression. E4024 (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- I like the naming convention used by the grandchild categories under Category:Politicians meeting foreign leaders by name, although it's a mix of "and" and "with": "<name1> and <name2>" or "<name1> with <name2>", with no titles and the names in alphabetical order. So this category could be Category:Ilham Aliyev and Binali Yıldırım or Category:Ilham Aliyev with Binali Yıldırım. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. Please do it. Alphabetical order is a good thing. --E4024 (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the language these names are in. Are Aliyev and Yıldırım the family names? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yessir. --E4024 (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the language these names are in. Are Aliyev and Yıldırım the family names? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. Please do it. Alphabetical order is a good thing. --E4024 (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Closing: renamed as indicated. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Should it be renamed "Trams in tunnels" instead? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. We have Category:Trains in tunnels, and we should probably have a super-category to link them together. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Done (how does one close this?) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Close -- cat renamed. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
non english cat Afifa Afrin (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Also empty, so I tagged it with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
She's empty. Sammyday (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- This was created by an anonymous IP. It's in an otherwise emtpy Category:National Museum of Naval History created by Hiàn, which is in Category:U.S. Navy Museum along with a similar looking Category:Korean War: USN Airstrikes (created by Hiàn) and Category:WWII: Pacific: Tinian: Atomic Bombs (created by Tyler ser Noche). What's going on here? Are these exhibits? Do we want "National Museum of the United States Navy" or "U.S. Navy Museum" (two names for the same museum)? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Category:WWII:Atlantic:German Attacks→Delete for empty category. Category:National Museum of Naval History→Delete for empty category. Category:National Museum of the United States Navy (National Museum of the United States Navy)→I have redirected: Category:U.S. Navy Museum. --Allforrous (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Done: 2 empty categories deleted, 1 redir. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Unicorns in coats of arms of families of England, full of images of unicorn supporters, ie not in coat of arms which is the shield, for which a cat already exists. It would be a losing battle to subdivide every charge into countries, and of little use. Please delete cat. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Please delete cat. --Allforrous (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Done: Empty category. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Incorrectly placed. Misuse of Wikimedia Commons as host for English Wikipedia article that had previously been deleted. Jake Brockman (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment I have removed this category from inappropriate places but unless the images are deleted, I don't see why this should be, however it contains excess detail that should probably be removed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Done: Empty category deleted. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
obvious error Tumili instead of Tumuli Gouwenaar (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Done: Empty category deleted. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
This category doesn't warrant existing only because it has pictures in Fire stations in Lake City, Florida - recommend deleting category. Mjrmtg (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- It was empty when I looked, so I tagged it with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Done: Deleted by Taivo. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
No need as category with correct naming already exist at Category:Pronunciation_of_Odia_alphabet Psubhashish (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. Parent category is Category:Odia alphabet not alphabets. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Done: per above. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Category should be deleted. It has no obvious purpose and seems to have been created as an experiment or joke/hoax Malcolma (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Done: Could have been speedy deleted. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Jan Ksawery Kaniewski Matlin (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. Category:Jan Ksawery Kaniewski seems to be standard spelling and is attached to wikidata. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Done: deleted: Empty, dupe, author's request. Creator:Ksawery Jan Kaniewski deleted as well. --Achim (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Empty category. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Please delete cat. --Allforrous (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Close: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Cross wiki spam. All articles have been deleted in Wikipedia already Amir (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- I proposed deletion of the files in there. Sorry Mohammad. --E4024 (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Close: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Several reasons: 1) not entirely English, masjid should be mosque; 2) vague inclusion criteria, when is a mosque local? 3) somewhat redundant to Category:Muslims in worship. HyperGaruda (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Takeaway (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- Also, it's categorized under two Pakistan-related categories, but this one doesn't mention Pakistan. In any case, it's empty, so I tagged it with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Category:Figures refers to visual artwork representation of humans, animals, or mythical beasts, in any medium. Subcategories Category:Mythological characters, Category:Deities, Category:Figures in Norse mythology, Category:Figures in Turkic mythology, Category:Mythological creatures seem to be using "figures" here as synonymous with characters. Only Category:Mythological figures in nature, Category:Mythological human figures in heraldry, and Category:Multiple mythological figures are using it here to indicate in art (ie. excluding literature, etc). I would suggest we move this to Category:Mythological characters in art, as a subcategory of Category:Figures and Category:Mythological characters (itself a subcategory of Category:Mythology). Themightyquill (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
No opposition in a month. Moed to Category:Mythological characters in art and Category:Mythological characters. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
This cat, created by a bot must RD to Category:Yıldırım (surname), but I am not sure what to do in these cases. E4024 (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's coming from the Wikidata item, which has this spelling, so redirecting wouldn't move the items out. I couldn't change it on one of the entries in Wikidata: I think it would require creating a Wikidata item defining Yıldırım as a family name. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hey there! What you could not do was exactly what I was expecting from you to do. Since I have difficulty in reaching some places (I mean I have been prohibited from contributing, for being active aggressive :) I was hoping you to take care of this deformation of Turkish proper names written in Turkish Latin Alphabet. YILDIRIM means "relámpago" (cómo se dice en inglés?) and "Yildirim" does not mean anything. Maybe the bot-owner will help. --E4024 (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- I created the category upon request, it can be deleted if the name does not exists. It comes from wikidata as sid by Auntof6. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hey there! What you could not do was exactly what I was expecting from you to do. Since I have difficulty in reaching some places (I mean I have been prohibited from contributing, for being active aggressive :) I was hoping you to take care of this deformation of Turkish proper names written in Turkish Latin Alphabet. YILDIRIM means "relámpago" (cómo se dice en inglés?) and "Yildirim" does not mean anything. Maybe the bot-owner will help. --E4024 (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe it was my mistake to open this to an unnecessary discussion; as "Yildirim" does not exist. Therefore I am closing this discussion and will try to correct the mistakes made in this issue. --E4024 (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Yıldırım (surname). --E4024 (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
hanxhwajxcocmoe 2001:1388:1B85:9D7B:8125:7863:7CDD:B995 22:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Saint Elisabeth is obviously somewhat ambiguous as en:Saint Elizabeth is a disambiguation page. At the same time, en:Elizabeth (biblical figure) is obviously the most notable Saint Elizabeth, since en:Saint Elisabeth redirects there. I'm more concerned with Category:Saint Elisabeth churches where it's ambiguous if we're talking about the name or the patron saint. But I'm not sure how I would rename Category:Saint Elisabeth churches to make it more specific. Category:Saint Elizabeth is already effectively a disambiguation page, and shouldn't exist as it now does. Thoughts? Themightyquill (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Here, all the pages about the Biblical figure should be qualified, even though some of the resulting cat names might be awkward. If we rename the main cat to Category:Saint Elisabeth (Biblical figure), then I guess the subcat would have to be Category:Saint Elisabeth (Biblical figure) churches.
- As with the issues around saints named Catherine, I think any Saint Elisabeth/Elizabeth categories whose names are not qualified should be disambiguation pages (unless they are categorized only by name and not by saint). I see that Category:Saint Elizabeth contains subcats for different saints. That cat should be either renamed to Category:Saints named Elizabeth (if we want categories like that) or be changed to a disambiguation page. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I've moved everything to Category:Saint Elizabeth (biblical figure) to (mostly) match the wikipedia article, including Category:Saint Elizabeth (biblical figure) churches. As for Category:Saint Elisabeth churches, I just moved the problem to Category:Saint Elizabeth as it's part of a different problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Thesupermat is a very very useful/good contributor, but I think 2-3 images of each artist at a given concert/festival would be enough to provide "educational value" to the project. I would have one category for the festival and 1, 2 (maybe 3) images for each artist/group. Ketil3 (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Ketil3: If you're suggesting that some of these images should be deleted, you'd need to nominate the images rather than the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the category itself. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Apparently Zaragoza has two churches with the same name: Category:Church of Santa Isabel de Portugal (Zaragoza) (built in 1706) and Category:Church of Santa Isabel de Portugal, Zaragoza (built in 1954). Should we disambiguate the category names with years, or perhaps neighbourhoods? Themightyquill (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Disambiguate, yes. By what? Do we know what neighborhoods these are in? In any case, using the years should be fine. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: . In hindsight, I'm not sure that the latter building should have the same name. On google maps it's listed as "Parroquia Santa Isabel de Portugal, Zaragoza" rather than the separate "Church of Santa Isabel de Portugal." Maybe we could use the Spanish name or translate at Category:Parish Church of Santa Isabel de Portugal? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable, too, but then I'm no expert on what to call churches in Portugal. Also, for what it's worth, we do already have a lot of categories whose names start with "Parroquia". --Auntof6 (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: . In hindsight, I'm not sure that the latter building should have the same name. On google maps it's listed as "Parroquia Santa Isabel de Portugal, Zaragoza" rather than the separate "Church of Santa Isabel de Portugal." Maybe we could use the Spanish name or translate at Category:Parish Church of Santa Isabel de Portugal? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Parroquia Santa Isabel de Portugal, Zaragoza. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
This naming seems a little awkward to me. I would propose renaming to Category:Welcome arches in the Philipines or Category:Arch gates in the Philippines. Either way, it should be a sub-category of Category:Arch gates. Many/most of the sub-categories are awkwardly named as well, but I guess that's a separate issue. Themightyquill (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- There also seems to be some redundancy with Category:Border arches-signs in the Philippines. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Redirected both to Category:Arch gates in the Philippines. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Are we going to add this cat to all pics of food? Or is it intended only for images like the one in File:2013-08-31 09-24-33 Kochprojekt Wien.jpg? E4024 (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm.. Most of the sub-categories in Category:Photography by subject are rather worrisome. I would definitely not be adding all photos of food to this category. They can just go in Category:Food- Themightyquill (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Food photography should not be taken to mean photographs of food (or, in other words, just "food", as Themightyquill says). Maybe this category should be called "Photographing food" or "People photographing food". --Auntof6 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:People photographing food and content sorted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
This category is for files from the "extra point" or "point after touchdown" play in American football. In Canadian football, this is called the "convert" and hence the category name. But this is a confusing name for the category since one would expect that a category named "convert" has something to do with file conversion (e.g. a maintenance category for files in need of conversion), so I suggest renaming it to "Point after touchdown". B (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Or perhaps, Category:Conversion (gridiron football) to match the wikipedia page at en:Conversion (gridiron football)? Either way redirects should me made from the other names for this event. Category:Convert should be deleted and Category:Conversion should be made a disambiguation page like en:Conversion. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- "Conversion (gridiron football)" is fine - I have no strong preference on the title. --B (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Conversion (gridiron football), and created a dab page at Category:Conversion. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's clear how Category:Aircraft by type name is different from Category:Aircraft by type and Category:Aircraft by function. Category:Aircraft by type by facing includes mostly subcategories by model. Category:Aircraft by type by manufacturer and Category:Aircraft formation flight by type include subcategories "by type" that seem to actually be "by model". Should we have Category:Aircraft by manufacturer by model or something like that? Themightyquill (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- "Type" is the correct ICAO (and Wikipedia) term, not "model".
- See Admin on this discussion: "And "type" is the official ICAO designation for what may otherwise be called an aircraft model. Using "model" for general aircraft categories is problematic though, because it should only be used for categories of scale models. Hence the "by type" wording of the subcategories that was rightfully introduced by Uli Elch. De728631 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)"
- See also Category:Models of aircraft. --Uli Elch (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Uli Elch: Thanks for your comments, but I'm not sure what you mean by "and wikipedia" because en:Category:Aircraft by type is not including things that I might call models. I can, on the contrary, find lots of examples of real full-size aircraft that use "model" in their names. I can't imagine how anyone seeing Category:Aircraft by manufacturer by model would think the category was for scale models. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please type in aircraft model in the English Wikipedia - and see what happens. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Like this ? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- You were talking about English Wikipedia, not Google, weren't you? So please start over again. --Uli Elch (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Like this ? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please type in aircraft model in the English Wikipedia - and see what happens. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I agree fully that that scale models are in no way a confusing element here. That sliver of the Category:Aircraft tree can easily be identified and a 'cat see also' applied to solve the rare misdirection. It pales in comparison to the confusion inherant to using the word 'type': "helicopter" could be an aircraft type, "civil aircraft" could be an aircraft type, "twin-engine biplane" could be an aircraft type, "F-15 Eagle" could be an aircraft type...and so on. Josh (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment @Uli Elch: The link you gave references a discussion about a completely different topic than the model/type/whatever one (it is about registration categories and their structure). It certainly didn't reach any consensus on the matter of this discussion. Cherry-picked comments add nothing to this discussion. Far better to let people comment on their own behalf. Maybe they would say the same thing, maybe after reading the discussion they would say something different, or maybe they wouldn't see fit to add any comment at all. I can't presume what their opinion on this discussion is. Josh (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Uli Elch: I don't understand your point. Typing "aircraft by model" into English wikipedia does not result in any hits for "model aircraft". By contrast, en:Category:Aircraft by type yields sub-categories like "Airships" and "Glider tugs" not specific models. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but why do you always tamper with what I'm asking you for? I did not say "aircraft by model" but "aircraft model". --Uli Elch (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- But no one is suggesting a category called "aircraft model" but "X aircraft by model" -- that's my whole point: no one is going to confuse "aircraft by model" with "model aircraft". See up at the top where I said "I can't imagine how anyone seeing Category:Aircraft by manufacturer by model would think the category was for scale models." - Themightyquill (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Why don't we simply use Category:Aircraft by manufacturer by type ?
- ICAO is the worldwide authority concerning aviation regulations. More than 190 states have agreed to and signed those rules. ICAO nowhere uses "model" in this context. Please read: en:Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Tone: "... should be written in a formal tone." and "Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach" and "Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon ..."
- Wikipedia is not here to override official, internationally recognized and standardized terms and replace them by slang, vernacular language or ambiguity. --Uli Elch (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Uli Elch: Your premise is flat out false. It is NOT standardized or internationally recognized to use only "type" and not "model". ICAO itself uses both terms, as I show below. The world's largest national aviation authority also uses both terms, but both agencies do agree in that they explicitly list "737-400" as the "model" of the aircraft, not the "type". See the n-number lookup for a Boeing 737-400 here [1] to see for yourself. So while there is not a true standard in place, both "the worldwide authority concerning aviation regulations" (ICAO) and the largest national aviation authority (FAA) consider "737-400" to be the "Model", so I guess using your logic going against "model" would be a violation of en:Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Tone. Josh (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: The assertion that ICAO does not recognize "model" as being the term for the given name of an aircraft is patently untrue, as they distinctly consider "737-400" to be the "Model", and the "B734" to be the "Type Designator". See their site here [2]: they identify the "MANUFACTURER", "MODEL", and "TYPE DESIGNATOR" for each aircraft. For example (type in 737 under model and search to see for yourself), the Boeing 737-400 has "Boeing" listed under "Manufacturer", "737-400" listed under "Model", and "B734" under "Type Designator". The Commons category is Category:Boeing 737-400, combining what ICAO recognizes as the "manufacturer" and "model", but not including the ICAO "type designator", similar to most of our aircraft model/type categories. The idea that ICAO does not recognize "model" is false, and therefore is not a valid rationale for forcing the word "type" on us. Josh (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Thank you for raising this discussion. Uli Elch (talk · contribs) has converted many of the category names you listed without discussion, just changing the name to his liking and continually copying the same flawed assertion that it is an ICAO standard to use the word "type" and not use the word "model". I am not wedded to either model or type, though "model" is consistent with the majority of Commons when it comes to products: Category:Products by type is to categorize by general classification, not by specific defined models. Tying the word "type" to the ICAO "type designator" is even more problematic. We almost never use the "type designator" in our category names, so no reason to have an index by that criteria. Should sub cats be limited to those that cover a specified ICAO type designator? "Boeing 737" is not and ICAO 'type' but instead there are several "type designators" assigned to different variants of the family, not necessarily congruant to Commons category breakdown of the family, so how are these to be handled? I have found that the better way to handle it is instead of picking an amorphous catch-all, sort by what it actually is: For the Category:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, "F-15" is the Tri-service designation, so add to Category:Aircraft by United States Tri-Service designation (sort key "F015"), and "Eagle" is the popular name so add to Category:Aircraft by popular name (sort key "Eagle"). Josh (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Great points. Not to mention, we are not beholden to the ICAO's use of terms. We use what fits our structure the best. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- @ Josh: Where do you show "ICAO itself uses both terms, as I show below."?
- @Uli Elch: You clearly did not read my Comment (now above actually): "The assertion that ICAO does not recognize "model" as being the term for the given name of an aircraft is patently untrue..." It has a link to ICAO and everything so you can see for yourself what terms ICAO uses. Josh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Uli Elch: You clearly did not read my
- "The world's largest national aviation authority ..." (FAA) is just one of over 150 such authorities, and every state has just 1 (one) vote in ICAO, regardless of size. And I really don't understand why you come up (again and again) with the subject of using ICAO "type designators" (as used in ATC flight plans) - at least I have always objected against using them in Wikipedia.
- The fact remains that both ICAO and the FAA call it "model". It doesn't matter how many 'votes' they have, all of those authorities are welcome to comment here, but their ICAO votes are completely irrelevant to this discussion. "Type Designator" is ICAO's term, and I feel if we are going to consider ICAO terminology in the discussion, we ought to cite it accurately. If you would instead prefer that ICAO's terminology not be considered and are willing to say that ICAO's terms have no bearing on our discussion, then we can stop worrying about what their terminology is. Josh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- It is simply untrue that it was me who "has converted many of the category names you listed without discussion, just changing the name to his liking". The opposite is true - it was Josh who started converting dozens of categories from "type" to "model". Examples: Landings in aviation, Category:Aircraft by operator by model, Aircraft by registration by type, Aircraft take offs by type and so on.
- I did indeed change a few names, but I only did so until an objection was raised and I will await consensus before taking more action (note all of the changes you cited were more than a year ago). You however continue to act as if your assertion that "type" is the absolute rule regardless of the lack of any consensus to that effect and the numerous comments to the opposite that indeed, many of us do not agree with your claims. See your recent change, done without discussion, but after you have been told that such changes are controversial, simply adding your false assertions in the summary: ""Type" is the official ICAO and Wikipedia term, not "model"". You ignore not only comments but clear evidence that "type" is not in any way a standard or universal common usage, certainly not by ICAO and Wikipedia as you claim. Josh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Using "en:Alternative facts", as it appears to have become fashionable in the US, in our discussions is absolutely unacceptable.
- Accusing me, or anyone else here, of being intentionally dishonest comes with a high burden of proof, which I would say you have not come close to meeting. I do not know who you are accusing of using alternative facts, but certainly what country you are from is completely irrelevant here, and to make such accusations is harmful to honest discussion. Making disparaging remarks about peoples' countries is also not in the least constructive. I encourage you to withdraw your disparaging remark and refrain from such in the future, for the sake of continuing a civil discussion on the topic at hand. Josh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- @ Huntster: "We use what fits our structure the best."? ... even if it contradicts the basic Wikipedia rules (see above) like
- "Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon ..." --Uli Elch (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Enforcing the use of the word "type" on users of the category system because it is a term derived from certain authorities' published regulations would indeed seem to be the definition of 'legalese', or because it is a word used by those 'in the know' as opposed to the word used by the general population would make it 'jargon'. While Themightyquill (talk · contribs) is correct that your quote is not a Commons rule or guideline and therefore not automatically applicable, I don't think it is a bad idea, and is further weight against using the term 'type' in this role and for the more generally understood word 'model' to be used instead. Josh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- @ Josh: Where do you show "ICAO itself uses both terms, as I show below."?
- @Uli Elch: In answer to your question, Category:Aircraft by manufacturer by type would naturally take up the "types" listed in Category:Aircraft by type (e.g. Category:Manufacturer X seaplanes or Category:Manufacturer X supersonic aircraft. As for the guideline you quoted, it's from wikipedia, not commons, so it doesn't apply. If it DID apply, it would support my argument - in common usage (not slang), people would definitely say model. Using type becase it's ICAO standard is an example of industry "jargon", specifically opposed by the guideline you quoted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Double meta cats are a bit tricky (which criteria goes first?). Thinking about this, it would seem that the structure would be something like this, what are your thoughts? Josh (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
| Possible structure for aircraft categories by manufacturer, model, and type |
|---|
|
- In this case, I'm not sure we need Category:Aircraft by model, as it has no obvious parent category tree to join and I can't imagine what would go in it aside from Category:Aircraft by manufacturer by model without overcategorization. I'm not qualified to say if Category:Aircraft by type by model would be useful. I suppose you could have subcategories like Category:Helicopters by model. Is that effectively what Category:Helicopters by type and by name is? For the legitimate concerns that Uli Elch has raised, we should be careful to avoid creating any category tree that might accidentally lead to Category:Aircraft models/Category:Models of aircraft. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I actually agree with that, as I've mentioned earlier, why have a catch-all at all? No need for either 'model' or 'type'. Sort in indices by the actual item being sorted by. If it is a designation, sort by designation, if it is a name, sort by name, if it is a manufacturer, sort by manufacturer. The problem I was trying to show is that if you have Category:Aircraft by model by manufacturer that would naturally lead to it being a metacat sub of Category:Aircraft by model. It's constituents would be things like Category:Boeing aircraft by model, Category:Consolidated aircraft by model, etc. I don't really see what value that would add since those categories don't generally exist right now, nor is there really a need for them. Josh (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Uli Elch notified me of this discussion. I did a fair bit of googling and the only authoritative sources I could find for using "aircraft types" as a technical designator, as in fixed-wing vs rotary, blimps and balloons vs "heavy" aircraft, jet vs propellers, etc, were Encyclopedia Britannica and the Delta Airline Museum. On the other hand, there are many more reliable sources that associate "aircraft type" with one manufacturer's specific build, namely Airbus A320, Boeing 777, and so on: Skybrary (by ICAO, The Flight Safety Foundation, The UK Flight Safety Committee and The European Strategic Safety Initiative), Planespotters, CNBC, KLM, AvPlanEFB app, FlightAware, Air Charter Guide, Academy Aviation. So it seems that "type" is far more often used in connection with the actual manufacturer's brand name for a plane like Antonov AN-22 and the like than in association with generic distinctions. Commons should reflect this.
Moreover, the renaming of Category:Aircraft by model name was somewhat justified because that name could have been mistaken for branded scale models (cf. 'Frog Pengun'). A better solution would have been though to put all its subcategories into "Category:Aircraft by type". De728631 (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- @De728631: Firstly, I would say that Encyclopedia Britannica is a far better representation on common usage than the UK Fligth Safety Committee, which could fairly be described as technical usage. The CNBC article you linked to uses "model" and "type" interchangeably, and they're talking about commercial flights the variety of types (in a broader sense) isn't relevant. I'd appreciate your references to "type" in the narrowest sense if they also discussed "type" (but using a different word) in the broadest sense. Second, how would your commend we categorize the contents currently in Category:Aircraft by type ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- @De728631: You can point to FSF, CNBC and ESSI and I can point to ICAO and Wiki and the FAA all we want, but the only conclusion is that neither is a clear solution, so the real question is: Does Category:Aircraft by type name even need to exist. It has three sub-cats, all of which according to their name should be (and are) actually under Category:Aircraft by type. Do that and you have an empty category which serves no purpose and can be deleted. No need to argue over the name of an empty category, I warrant. Josh (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion (feel free to carry on the discussion above), what actual action should be taken?
- Delete Category:Aircraft by type name. All contents already are correctly under Category:Aircraft by type. Josh (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Category:Aircraft by type by manufacturer and Category:Aircraft formation flight by type. No consensus is going to be reached on the 'type' v. 'model' question, so leave them as is. Josh (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
More than a month since final comments. There does not appear to be a consensus on changing 'type' to 'model', so no change of category names. Category:Aircraft by type name is unnecessary and can be deleted/merged into Category:Aircraft by type. Josh (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Wizard of Oz (franchise) or Category:Oz (franchise) for the sake of clarity, and as a better base category for all related media. Themightyquill (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Wizard of Oz (franchise). - Themightyquill (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Children's libraries as per grammar and en:Children's library. Themightyquill (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support, unless these are libraries that lend children. ;) --Auntof6 (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Children's libraries. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Hreczanyki - "Buckwheat burgers" is a forced cultural translation, not in common usage. Themightyquill (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Hreczanyki - Themightyquill (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Do we have an obligation to create individual cats for each and every Matthias Laurenz Gräff work? I feel there is some self promotion around the edits regarding this artist. E4024 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- The single contained file would probably fit better in Category:Demonstrations and protests in Catalonia in 2017. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Moved file, deleted category. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Not needed. We have a Category:Islamic calligraphy. We have no reason to add an artist to such a category because of their "supposed" religion. I would not be surprised to hear Armenian or Assirian (Christian) calligraphers in the Ottoman Empire making this kind of calligraphy. E4024 (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. It certainly seems strange to me, unless there's some strict category of calligraphers that only write things related to their religion. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Also agreed. Abzeronow (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Female physicians by nationality or "by country"? E4024 (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- I made it to match w:Category:Women physicians by nationality, but it matters not to me. Evrik (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think the Commons practice is to use country names instead of nationality. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Female physicians by country to match parent category and peers. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Merge with Category:Military people of the 1848-49 war of independence. This might also be renamed Category:Military people of the 1848-49 Hungarian war of independence if people think it's wise. Themightyquill (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with merging. However I think renaming would be unnecessary. Independence war was only in Hungary in 1848-49. --Regasterios (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
No opposition. Merged with Category:Military people of the 1848-49 war of independence - Themightyquill (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
This category links to English wikipedia en:Category:African-Americans' civil rights activists which has been moved to en:Category:Activists for African-American civil rights. That would suggest members of the Category:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) regardless of skin colour. At the same time, our existing category is a sub-category of Category:African American humanitarians and Category:African Americans by occupation, which would seem to limit sub-categories to African Americans. I think both have value. Certainly, there are civil rights activists today who are african american but weren't part of the Category:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). Should we make Category:Activists for African-American civil rights or Category:Activists of the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) and a separate Category:African-American activists for civil rights knowing they will often (but not always) overlap? Themightyquill (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable to me. - Jmabel ! talk 04:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. I created this category and a ton of other "African American by occupation" subcategories in 2008 when I was trying to clean out the tons of images cluttering up the Category:African Americans category. I'm glad that since then people have been making them more intentional and rational. Thank you. --Kenmayer (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, and split into Category:Activists of the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) and Category:African-American activists for civil rights. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
delete this category as it is empty VenkateshMgna (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- It is a redirect: redirects should be empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: maiden name, thus plausible alternative and should remain a redirect. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. ℯxplicit 04:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I thought we had a discussion on this cat. What happened with it? I could not follow, but the notification is still on the concerned user's TP. E4024 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- I deleted it, and Donald1972 has recreated it without discussion. @Donald1972: Can you offer any explanation? Otherwise I'll just delete again. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jcb. ℯxplicit 04:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This category should be renamed to Category:Sticky & Sweet Tour per the actual article name in the English Wikipedia. IndianBio (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Moved: to Category:Sticky & Sweet Tour. ℯxplicit 04:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Multiple flowerpots to fit under Category:Multiple. "Many" is subjective and should be avoided when possible. Themightyquill (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agree I agree. That's a good idea. Due to this, We can deal with few (= "not many" groups of 2 or 3) flowerpots. Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Moved: to Category:Multiple flowerpots. ℯxplicit 04:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Is this really a given name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Once again, I object to these compound "given name" categories when it's not used as a compound name like "Mary Jane" and especially when it's an uncommon combination. Even if Silva isn't a family name, I doubt anyone called him "John Silva" and he might well be the only notable person with that given name combination. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Themightyquill. "John Silva" is two names, and shouldn't be combined as a single given name. I don't even think names like "Mary Jane" should be listed as one name. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. ℯxplicit 04:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The name of this category does not make sense. I assume that the creator meant something like functional groups containing sulfur. Leyo 23:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly. I wrote Category: Sulfur groups just for the sake of brevity. You can propose Category: Functional groups with sulfur o similar for the sake of brevity.--Grasso Luigi (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Similar to Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/11/Category:Phosphorus groups; these categories shouldn't be discussed separately.
It could be renamed to something like Category:Functional groups containing sulfur (like Category:Ions containing sulfur) with a supercategory Category:Functional groups by element/Category:Functional groups by constituent element, but do we need such categorisation at all? Wostr (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC) - I think Category:Functional groups containing sulfur is the best option. Ed (Edgar181) 12:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Moved as suggested. --Leyo 14:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The name of this category does not make sense. I assume that the creator meant something like functional groups containing phosphorus. Leyo 23:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly. I wrote Category: Phosphorus groups just for the sake of brevity. You can propose Category: Functional groups with phosphorus o similar for the sake of brevity.--Grasso Luigi (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- It could be renamed to something like Category:Functional groups containing phosphorus (like Category:Ions containing phosphorus) with a supercategory Category:Functional groups by element/Category:Functional groups by constituent element, but do we need such categorisation at all? Wostr (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Your suggestion sounds reasonable to me. @Rhadamante, DMacks, and Edgar181: Do you agree? --Leyo 11:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC) PS. The same applies to Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/11/Category:Sulfur groups.
- I think Category:Functional groups containing phosphorus is the best option. Ed (Edgar181) 12:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Moved as suggested. --Leyo 13:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
What are commercial rifles? There is a definition missing. Sanandros (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hmmm, maybe if you build a semi-automatic rifle out of a Pringles can it's not commercial?
Merge with parent category semi-automatic rifles. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Merged: to Category:Semi-automatic rifles per discussion. ℯxplicit 06:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This category seems to be a duplicate of the Category:Text advertisements. Flávio Nuno Neves Rodrigues (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- It seems Category:Text:Advertisements is for images with the words "ad", "ads" or "advertisements", regardless of whether the image is itself an advertisement. Category:Text advertisements seems to be for text-based advertisements, regardless of whether the word "advertisements" appears in the text. Until now, I've been unaware of Category:Images by text and its contents. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I can see the logic now. Thank you!--Flávio Nuno Neves Rodrigues (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Closed as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but even with a "supposed" adjective in the title, this category is totally out of the scope of Commons. How are we to recognise a supposed chemtrail? Supposed by whom, with what kind of evidence? These are just contrails. Commons is not the place to have people build up their conspiracy theories. Ariadacapo (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- I (as creator of the category) understand you totally. So, my intention is to collect - or better said - to separate images with ordinary (in common sense of a meaning) contrails, which usually last for about 20 seconds or something, and extraordinary contrails, which last for hours and which in some way essentially differ from ordinary ones. Maybe it's just the name of the category that should be more adequate, for example: Long-lasting contrails ... that means some name, that would make a distinction, as we know for example cloud types. --Janezdrilc (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- There's nothing extraordinary about longer-lasting contrails. Their persistence depends on many atmospheric factors, so there's nothing inherently special about them do merit extra categorization (see en:Contrail). And even if we did this, which time limit would you set for "ordinary" ones, why exactly such limit and how would you reliably distinguish "extraordinary" contrails from a photo? — Yerpo Eh? 07:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's reasonable to have Category:Chemtrail conspiracy theory, but it's not reasonable to categorize all contrails a second time according to what some people think is a conspiracy. Janezdrilc, even if we accepted your separate definition (and to be clear, I don't think it's useful), there's no reasonable way to categorize a photo of a contrail by how long it lasted. We certainly wouldn't want an hour of video footage of a contrail either. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is not a generally accepted definition of 'ordinary' vs. 'extraordinary' contrails, so it is not reasonable for us to categorize on that basis. It is reasonable to categorize 'chemtrails' seperately from 'contrails' in cases where it there is evidence to support that it is not a mere aerodynamic/atmospheric effect of a passing plane, but actually a deposited trail of some sort of chemical, such as Category:Aerial application. However, contrail duration is not sufficient evidence of this. In any case, unless there is some sort of visual distinction between short and long-lasting contrails, it is not reasonable to categorize photos by duration. If we do have video of contrails, then I suppose caterizing media by duration would be fine, but not under the guise of being 'chemtrails'. Simply categorize by what we know (duration), and leave the speculation to the viewer. This category should be removed and redirected to Category:Contrails in Slovenia. Josh (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Closing discussion : Category was redirected to Category:Contrails in Slovenia. Pierre cb (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
|
Category does not serve any purpose other than POV pushing, the exact reason it was created for and edited by an IP (IPs in the same range have created similar edits) and a blocked account. Category:Disputed territories and Category:Military occupation already exit which serve a better purpose than this. --Gotitbro (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep It seems to me like there is a little POV pushing on both sides here. Gotitbro has been abusing the speedy deletion process trying to quickly remove these categories using an invalid rationale and misstating that accounts are blocked, when they are not. IPs are fully allowed to create content here and we don't nuke things for being blocked. This isn't how Commons is done. Gotitbro has caused a large amount of work with their apparent vendetta against these categories which just tells me that POV pushing goes both ways. --Majora (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have already explained myself on Majora's Talk page. I had no intention of abusing the deletion process though I admit while filing multiple reports I mixed things up and I apologize for that. No one is saying IPs aren't allowed to create content. I have no vendetta against anything I only filed reports for things which were blatant hoaxes (states/provinces as independent countries; pages on non-existent entities etc.) all created by the same IPs. I haven't POV pushed anything though a few erroneous reports were filed mistakenly.
- Also none of the above relates to why this category should be kept. In this particular case the category will serve no other purpose than POV pushing and edit warring. Gotitbro (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not to mention that most of my deletion reports were valid (bar a few erroneous ones by mistake) and the pages were deleted by the relevant admins. And I only proceeded after an ANI submission for the users and IPs in question. My deletion rationales focused on blatant POV pushing hoax pages while also mentioning the creator's status (some mistakes happened here). I have already edited valid pages to remove POV; and only filed deletion requests for such complete hoaxes. Rather than trying to discredit me the discussion should focus on this category. Gotitbro (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- "Disputed" and occupied" are quite different indeed. To give an example, Gaza is an occupied territory, but as Israel is not interested in building housing there, it does not dispute it. --E4024 (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Closing as kept per Gotitbro and E4024 above. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Can we add a category description to explain the purpose of this category? Themightyquill (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Given the current content, I don't think this title makes sense. I would expect a category with this title to contain things related to more modern myths that were related to astronomy. I can't think of any real ones, but an example might be if it were commonly believed that astronomer Jones had discovered Comet Foo, whereas it was really their assistant -- something like that. With this category's current content, the name "References to mythology in astronomy" would make more sense. In addition to what's already there, it could contain categories for our major planets (all of them except Earth, I think) and their moons, and for the Gemini and Apollo programs, among other things. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: We could rename, but its current content all leads to a single category Category:1172 Äneas with a single file. Is this a worthwhile tree? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Probably not. Aeneas is a myth(ological person), but not an astronomical one. Even if we were to populate the categories with what I think the creator probably meant, it would be almost every astronomical object and probably not be worth it. This kind of thing is probably better as a Wikipedia list article. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: We could rename, but its current content all leads to a single category Category:1172 Äneas with a single file. Is this a worthwhile tree? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Deleted per above discussion. Was only used on Category:Minor_planets_named_from_mythology (which itself appears to be perhaps an unneeded extra step category from Category:Minor_planets_named_from_Greek_mythology, since it had no other members?). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate of an other category titled in English (the previous discussion created for another category by me is a mistake) J. N. Squire (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Duplicate of Category:Montreuil Children's Book Fair. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Category:Salon du livre et de la presse jeunesse redirected to Category:Montreuil_Children's_Book_Fair, since the first contained only one file while the second had multiple files and subcategories. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/04/Category:Public footpaths in the United Kingdom. I'd like to merge this category with Category:Public footpaths and call the result Category:Footpaths. That's the name used in the English WIkipedia, and found in dictionaries. "Public footpath" has a legal meaning in some countries such as the UK, but I don't think attempting to make this distinction on Commons is very useful. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/04/Category:Public footpaths in the United Kingdom. --ghouston (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- That makes sense to me. Certainly, one can run or jog on a footpath. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Is this intended to cover "sidewalks", or just paths that aren't along a road? Because in the UK those are often called "footpaths" (especially on signs about dogs "fouling the footpath"), a usage that is not used in the U.S. (I'd have no problem with sidewalks as a subcat of footpaths, just not lumped in with the distinction lost.) - Jmabel ! talk 01:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sidewalks will still be a (sub)subcategory. I'm not sure exactly what Category:Walkways encompasses and whether they belong there, but it's a separate issue. --ghouston (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sidewalks is wrong for the UK as they are not called that but Pavements. We also have a Pavements category which looks to be for the materials used to make sidewalks but is a bit of a mixture and some sub-categories should be under the sidewalks tree. On the original suggestion I think that the UK distinction for Public footpaths should be retained. Keith D (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Would you say the status quo is fine, and we can close these two discussions, or are there useful changes that can be made? Ideally, for a top-level category X, we should name its subcategories the same way, e.g., X in the United States and X in the United Kingdom. Commons doesn't support multi-lingual categories. The original complaint was that there's no such thing as a public footpath in Scotland. --ghouston (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sidewalks is wrong for the UK as they are not called that but Pavements. We also have a Pavements category which looks to be for the materials used to make sidewalks but is a bit of a mixture and some sub-categories should be under the sidewalks tree. On the original suggestion I think that the UK distinction for Public footpaths should be retained. Keith D (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sidewalks will still be a (sub)subcategory. I'm not sure exactly what Category:Walkways encompasses and whether they belong there, but it's a separate issue. --ghouston (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Is this intended to cover "sidewalks", or just paths that aren't along a road? Because in the UK those are often called "footpaths" (especially on signs about dogs "fouling the footpath"), a usage that is not used in the U.S. (I'd have no problem with sidewalks as a subcat of footpaths, just not lumped in with the distinction lost.) - Jmabel ! talk 01:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- We can merge Category:Walking paths and Category:Public footpaths into Category:Footpaths but leave Category:Public footpaths in the United Kingdom as it is, and placed as a sub-category of Category:Footpaths in the United Kingdom. In this case, Category:Footpaths in Scotland would be a sub-category of "Footpaths" not "Public footpaths". Category:Sidewalks (by any name) can remain a subcaategory, that's a separate issue. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- That would be OK, except "Sidewalks" isn't a separate issue, because they are also known as "footpaths" so by renaming "walking paths" to "footpaths" it becomes ambiguous. --ghouston (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ghouston: I respect your concern, but I disagree. Jmabel, who raised the issue, said "I'd have no problem with sidewalks as a subcat of footpaths, just not lumped in with the distinction lost." Sidewalks are sometimes called footpaths in the UK because they are a type of footpath, which is why Category:Sidewalks would be a sub-category. Walking paths through the woods in the UK can also be called footpaths. Sidewalk is globally unambiguous, no? Using footpaths to refer strictly to sidewalks is (globally) confusing. So in this case, I think it makes sense to use the broadest term for the broadest category, and use the least ambiguous term for the subcategory. If Category:Sidewalks in the United Kingdom is such a problem (despite being in existence for nearly 8 years), someone can propose merging it with Category:Pavements in the United Kingdom or some other solution. Or maybe I've overlooked some more fundamental problem? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's unusual to use "footpath" for unpaved surfaces in Australia and NZ. But the categories have to be named something, and maybe Footpaths / Sidewalks is the best compromise. Pavements wouldn't necessarily be footpaths or next to a street, but again it depends on how you define the word, and it seems to vary. --ghouston (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ghouston: I respect your concern, but I disagree. Jmabel, who raised the issue, said "I'd have no problem with sidewalks as a subcat of footpaths, just not lumped in with the distinction lost." Sidewalks are sometimes called footpaths in the UK because they are a type of footpath, which is why Category:Sidewalks would be a sub-category. Walking paths through the woods in the UK can also be called footpaths. Sidewalk is globally unambiguous, no? Using footpaths to refer strictly to sidewalks is (globally) confusing. So in this case, I think it makes sense to use the broadest term for the broadest category, and use the least ambiguous term for the subcategory. If Category:Sidewalks in the United Kingdom is such a problem (despite being in existence for nearly 8 years), someone can propose merging it with Category:Pavements in the United Kingdom or some other solution. Or maybe I've overlooked some more fundamental problem? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- That would be OK, except "Sidewalks" isn't a separate issue, because they are also known as "footpaths" so by renaming "walking paths" to "footpaths" it becomes ambiguous. --ghouston (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ghouston: What about just Category:Paths ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Possible, it looks like another one that should be merged. --ghouston (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Then d:Q5004679 and d:Q3352369 could also be merged. --ghouston (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ghouston: But could we merge into Category:Paths instead? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- It wouldn't bother me. --ghouston (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I like it. Paths and Walking paths already share many of the same subcategories, and it avoids the "footpaths are sidewalks" issue. --ghouston (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ghouston: But could we merge into Category:Paths instead? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think it makes sense. Several of the Category:Paths in country x categories only contain Category:Walking paths in country x anyway. I'm going to merge unless anyone objects. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Paths along with national subcategories, though subnational subcategories could still use some work. Themightyquill (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- I removed {{Category for discussion|1=Category:Walking paths|month=11|year=2018}} from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Paths Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I think this category is for the same subject as category:James George Scott. If confirmed, should categories be merged ? ... but under which name ? Archie02 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Given the vast number of people with the name en:George Scott, Category:George Scott should be a disambiguation page. I would suggest we do so, and move these images to Category:James George Scott. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed to both points - time to do it? S a g a C i t y (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Archie02, Themightyquill, and Saga City: I've merged and redirected the category to Category:James George Scott, if you would prefer a disambig page to a redirect then please go ahead and change it over. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Duplicate of the Category:Philautus jerdonii category, which is about the same species, and has the Wikidata links to Wikipedia. Perhaps the pre-existing category should be moved into this category's place. Blythwood (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Obviously no dissent. Done. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Category for methylene groups containing a subcategory for methylene group (methanediyl group) and for files that are not methylene groups. Imo it's incorrect, according to IUPAC rules there is only one methylene group (and there is a category for this group already) and I don't know what else can be added to this cat. Wostr (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC) PS Probably Category:Methanediyl group should be renamed to Category:Methylene group and Category:Methylene groups may be switched to redirect. Wostr (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Grasso Luigi: As the creator of the category it would be good to hear your opinion on the suggestions above. --Leyo 11:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Wostr: I propose that you implement your suggestion since nobody is opposing. --Leyo 08:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Leyo: done. Main cat Category:Methylene group (+ info about methyl and methylidene groups), redirects: Category:Methylene groups, Category:Methanediyl group. Wostr (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Leyo 21:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Leyo: done. Main cat Category:Methylene group (+ info about methyl and methylidene groups), redirects: Category:Methylene groups, Category:Methanediyl group. Wostr (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Move to Category:Spinning (textiles) as per en:Spinning (textiles) to avoid images like File:BikeBus Ride.jpg and File:Korea GwangjangMarket Eats 03 (13885175863).jpg showing up. Themightyquill (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support Spinning around is also likely, given that this is a DAB on WP (Spinning redirects to Spin), it should definitely be one here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Done - Doesnt have to take years. --Joostik (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
empty not notable person category, delete Sakhalinio (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- A couple of things for your Commons career, my dear admin (TR): 1. We do not empty cats and then propose them for discussion. 2. I'm sure the cat was opened to keep together the OoS images therein until they were deleted. 3. You should better propose the deletion of the images, instead of the cat. 4. When all the files in a cat get deleted, then the empty cat may be speedied. Regards. --E4024 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I would like to propose moving all of the images from their respective Tourneo Connect/Courier/Connect categories to the Transit Connect/Courier/Connect based categories ie:
- Category:Ford Tourneo Connect > Category:Ford Transit Connect
- Category:Ford Tourneo Courier > Category:Ford Transit Courier
- Category:Ford Tourneo Custom > Category:Ford Transit Custom
The EN article states Featuring back seats and back windows similar to a minivan, the Tourneo is also considered an executive transport vehicle and is often supplied with alloy wheels. Since its introduction, the Tourneo has followed the same development cycle as the Transit; both versions receive updates at the same time. - As the years have gone on the Tourneo and Transit have become the exact same vehicle ..... The only difference between these vehicles is the name badge,
For instance if you compare:
- this image with this image
- this image with this image and
- this image with this image
you will see there are no differences at all and in the end the vehicles that are in the Ford Transit article could easily be the Tourneo vehicles ..... (ofcourse there are subtle differences like the roof rack etc but that is probably on the Transits too)
so to make life easier I'm proposing to move all images from their respective Tourneo categories to their respective Transit categories,
Whilst they're their own vehicle in their own right in terms of appearance they're no different to the Transits and so it seems pointless to have 2 categories for essentially one vehicle),
If this is closed as Merged then I'll move all images and redirect all categories, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- The creators of the Connect, Courier and Custom cats have all been notified and the cats have had the CFD applied to them, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Withdrawn, Had come across this randomly and had completely forgot all about it, no comments in 2 years so withdrawn. –Davey2010Talk 11:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn. –Davey2010Talk 11:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I could simply move the cat to the former church's new name as a mosque, Saatli Camii, or better Saatli Mosque, but wanted to take approval of colleagues. Other than sticking to a "glorious" past, typical nationalist POV, the opener of this cat, banned as " this user is incapable of editing honestly", presents their cat with the pejorative sentence: "Now used as the so-called "Clock Mosque"." If they read these things, hopefully under a more constructive user name, and not the sock account with the Turkish word "fart" (sorry) in it, I recommend them to look more frequently at the mirror. (When I do it myself I see that I have many defects myself.) Thanks. E4024 (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- @E4024: Either Category:Saatli Camii or Category:Saatli Mosque sounds good to me. Do we leave the existing categories, but also add Category:Former churches in Turkey and Category:Churches converted to mosques? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Done - Moved to "Saatli Mosque" as there were no objections to that name. Categorization can follow its own path. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Is Category:Elisabethgalerie in Wartburg Castle redundant with Category:Elisabeth-Galerie (Palas of Wartburg Castle) ? Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Done, going to merge them. --A.Savin 00:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
This category has only two images. In neither image is the person wearing "fishnet tights". And it is not possible to be "nude" and wear tights at the same time. If we ever need a category for "Men wearing fishnet toghts" we can create one. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. Move images to Category:Men wearing tights and delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
No opposition in over 2 years. Images moved as suggested. Will put a speedy delete template on the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
This ship is the "Black Pearl (ship, 2017) suggest re categorising it from current manufacturer's Model number Gillfoto 22:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- To make a new category Black Pearl (ship, 2017) with the same IMO-number and transfer the images of the ship with that name. Correct?--Stunteltje (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the category exists, but was renamed. Has to be reverted and images recategorised per name.
- Images of the Black Pearl transferred to Category:Black Pearl (ship, 2017)--Stunteltje (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Gillfoto and Stunteltje: Are we okay to close this discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- For me: yes. Images in the right categories. Coupled via the IMO number. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- For me: yes. There are two categories for one ship/boat with same IMO number a bit unusual, I suppose that's the reality when photographs are recorded without the ship/boat's name having the Boat/ship builders name is not the easiest to follow, a little more obscure. Ok - closed then. --Gillfoto (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not unusual at all. It is the system, see IMO number.--Stunteltje (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- For me: yes. There are two categories for one ship/boat with same IMO number a bit unusual, I suppose that's the reality when photographs are recorded without the ship/boat's name having the Boat/ship builders name is not the easiest to follow, a little more obscure. Ok - closed then. --Gillfoto (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- For me: yes. Images in the right categories. Coupled via the IMO number. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The current structure (two named ship categories childed to the IMO cat) seems to have agreement. – BMacZero (🗩) 22:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:Charles-Ferdinand Ramuz ? Themightyquill (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete "Category:Charles-Ferdinand Ramuz". Keep "Category:Charles Ferdinand Ramuz". -- Asclepias (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill and Asclepias: definitely not deletion, but I suggest solution per enwiki en:Charles Ferdinand Ramuz--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- OK, but then the other way around, i.e. redirect Category:Charles-Ferdinand Ramuz to Category:Charles Ferdinand Ramuz. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill and Asclepias: definitely not deletion, but I suggest solution per enwiki en:Charles Ferdinand Ramuz--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I redirected Category:Charles-Ferdinand Ramuz to Category:Charles Ferdinand Ramuz. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
delete as double of Vladimir Putin at award ceremonies (2018-11-27) Леонид Макаров (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Леонид Макаров: the category in question is the redirect to Category:Congress of all-Russian people's front-2018--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- delete redirect to Category:Congress of all-Russian people's front-2018--Леонид Макаров (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Леонид Макаров: I see you already did it. Category:Presentation of state awards (27.11.2018) is waiting to be speedy deleted --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- yes, speedy deleted--Леонид Макаров (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Леонид Макаров: I see you already did it. Category:Presentation of state awards (27.11.2018) is waiting to be speedy deleted --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- delete redirect to Category:Congress of all-Russian people's front-2018--Леонид Макаров (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Category was deleted. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Although the name is a derivative of Dalziel and Dalyell, better to stick to just one spelling. Please delete it, thanks. Sodacan (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Sodacan: Any reason not to leave it as a redirect? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This appears to be an accepted variant, so I kept it as a redirect. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Senseless disamb. There is only one category for a person with this name. Steak (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Steak: disamb should be the best solution. Same in enwiki en:Robert Morrison--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: You are right. We can close this discussion. Steak (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The DAB is now DABing something. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Buildings in a mix of styles in Bielsko-Biała redundant with Category:Eclectic architecture in Bielsko-Biała ? Themightyquill (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that does seem to be the definition given on Category:Eclectic architecture. I think the first should be merged into the second. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Eclectic architecture in Bielsko-Biała Themightyquill (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Harry Potter (franchise) for the sake of clarity. Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Let's not. Everyone knows who and what Harry Potter is. The term 'franchise' doesn't add any clarity. --Judithcomm (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Who or what? That's my point. =) We're not talking about a character in this instance, but the whole franchise including the books, film, characters, etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support move. It's reasonable to distinguish between the franchise and the character (for which we have Category:Harry Potter (character)). This page could become a disambiguation category. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- And what, would you say, would be in the 'franchise' category? Not the books, but only everything related to the films. And how do you distinguish fans of the books from those of the films? And artwork inspired by Harry Potter books and/or films, where would it go? And the games, the places, the foods, etc.? I just don't think things will become easier to find if you try to seperate the media this way. --Judithcomm (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Judithcomm: Yes, the books and everything else that's in Category:Harry Potter right now. Category:Harry Potter books and Category:Harry Potter films would remain subcategories as they are now. I'm not suggesting any changes to its contents. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with what Themightyquill said. The franchise includes the books, which started everything, and everything that sprang from them: films, characters, cosplay of the characters, fandom, foods, everything. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- And what, would you say, would be in the 'franchise' category? Not the books, but only everything related to the films. And how do you distinguish fans of the books from those of the films? And artwork inspired by Harry Potter books and/or films, where would it go? And the games, the places, the foods, etc.? I just don't think things will become easier to find if you try to seperate the media this way. --Judithcomm (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that the franchise and the character should be clearly distinguished as suggested. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Harry Potter (franchise). -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete this category, as "artistic photographs" is subjective. Mindmatrix 18:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- @JasonCarswell: If you'd like to make a gallery of images at Artistic photographs of Windsor, Ontario, probably no one would complain. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging me about this. I agree, but please let's resolve this before it's deleted. Most of the images on Commons, and anywhere for that matter, are nothing spectacular, or even good. Every once in a while you come across a beautiful, possibly professional, piece of work. I started this category early on, if for nothing else, not just to salute those admittedly subjective worthy of it but more to separate the creme of the crop. The "artistic" merit may be in question partly because I included what I saw as "professional" quality images. It did take some effort to bother doing so therefore I hope this subjective list might be better placed. It seems to me there are two options but I also have some questions.
- Are there other categories on Commons that are "Artistic photographs" or is this my entirely made up thing? If there's no precedent then there's no reason to start one, or rather this is not one.
- What is the significant difference between "IN" and "OF" by renaming the category (assuming we were to bother renaming it and not delete it)?
- I went a little overboard "curating" the Windsor, Ontario page where I tried to keep appropriately topical (best I could do) and to a minimum (less so). To my point, this may be a better place for this "list" of "artistic" and "professional-grade" images. (I don't know "why" I'm using so many "quotes".)
- Furthermore, on the Windsor, Ontario page, is there any precedent for subject titles. For example, there is no "Art" subject under "Culture in Windsor", or would this be better at the end under "Unclassified".
- Lastly, perhaps "Exceptional photographs" (of Windsor, Ontario) might be a better subject title.
- Please don't delete the category until we reach consensus and have moved the list.
- I look forward to your feedback. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- @JasonCarswell: The difference between in and of is this: A photo of a place shows the place: of refers to what was photographed. A photo in a place would be a physical photograph that is physically located in the place. We may have some categories that go against this, but that is the correct usage.
- As for the general issue here, terms like artistic and exceptional are in the eye of the beholder. You might not know about the Commons:Quality images, Commons:Valued images, and Commons:Featured pictures. Those terms can also be in the eye of the beholder, but on Commons they have specific definitions and are nominated and evaluated before being accepted. Maybe one of those would match what you have in mind. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Great googly-moogly! You just opened up a few giant rabbitholes for me to dive down! Not only are those great categories, but they've got lots of sub-categories. But I can't dive in just yet. Without a proper deep understanding of those categories, it might seem to make more sense as "Quality images from Windsor" were there such a convention. On first glance, sub-categories seem more topical than geographic, and that seems proper but unfortunately I'll have to sort through each image, which I can do a little later.
- The difference between in and of is still not clear. A photo of Windsor from the sky, or a photo of a part of Windsor from the street - both seem appropriate and recognizable as "of Windsor". A photo of a hand holding a leaf may be anywhere but the details and GPS say it was taken "in Windsor", as those in this category. "OF" still seems less appropriate than "IN", to me - at least for this list, in my opinion.
- I'm going to smash together the list into the Windsor, Ontario page for now. When I'm done that feel free to delete this category. Thereafter I can eventually get around to rearranging them like flowers and in doing so add those new quality categories appropriately - after I finish a few things on WP.
- I hope this is okay. Feel free to change my mind. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- So you may delete this category as I've listed them all on Windsor,_Ontario#Quality_images_in_Windsor,_Ontario where I'll sort them later and add appropriate "Quality" categories to them, as well as more from the Windsor, Ontario page where I turned my focus to at some point with less and less focus on this "artistic" category. Ironically, this all started with me trying to import a peace fountain image from "jodelli" on Flickr. Her (I think) stuff is fantastic (quality) and I'd always meant to go back through her Flickr album to upload many to Commons. I also want to make a "Images by Jodelli" category. (Full disclosure: I have no idea who "jodelli" is, but assume she lives in Windsor too.) I have yet to do so.
- It just occurred to me, that there is not one image, that I'm aware of, of the totem pole at the Windsor beach, much less of the beach nor the Stop 26 park. That totem pole was carved by legendary Canadian Northwest Pacific Haida artist, Bill Reid, if I'm not mistaken. He lived in Windsor for a while when young (and alive). And his section is terribly under served. Whew. That opens a HUGE topic of which I have some very advanced knowledge (ie. I own 80+ books on NW art to start) but I'd hesitate to call myself "expert". I don't know if I'm ready to dive into that one too.
- There's so many images "missing" regarding Windsor, I'm almost tempted to grab a camera and go outside - in the spring. I don't suppose there's a request list, wish list, or checklist or something? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- @JasonCarswell: Slow down! I don't think you can unilaterally decide that these are quality images and categorize them as such. They have to be nominated and evaluated. @Themightyquill: please tell me if I'm wrong. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 and JasonCarswell: Yes, "Quality image" has a specific meaning on commons, namely that it has been accepted at Commons:Quality images candidates. But if you're just talking about a section in a gallery, I think you could use some other similar term (artistic, scenic, whatever) without problem. What few guidelines govern galleries are at Commons:Galleries. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 and Themightyquill: Thanks, good to know. I changed the gallery title. A nomination process seems logical for quality "Quality" quality control. I don't know when I'll be up for submitting a bunch of images just because they're from Windsor and are well above average, but I'll keep it in mind knowing that I'll also have more learning to do if I ever do. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. @Auntof6 and Themightyquill: The files from the nominated categories are still in Windsor, Ontario#Excellent and artistic images in Windsor, Ontario. It seems that this gallery is not actively improved/supervised (one human-made edit in last three years). I personally think that these images are rather clutter for the Windsor-gallery. If user:JasonCarswell doesn't want to do Artistic photographs of Windsor, Ontario, I guess we should delete the nominated category--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:2015 FIDE World Chess Rapid and Blitz Championship, can thus be merged. Steak (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- There are definitely redundant. The main article at English wikipedia is at en:World Blitz Chess Championship though since 2012 is has been officially known as the "World Rapid & Blitz Chess Championships". Maybe a main category at Category:World Blitz Chess Championship should be created? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. @Steak and Themightyquill: we probably have analogue situations for other sports disciplines where during history the name has changed. Currently enwiki is under the name en:World Blitz Chess Championship. Maybe user:DerHexer can help?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that a redirect will fit all needs … —DerHexer (Talk) 13:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:2015 FIDE World Chess Rapid and Blitz Championship. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Time diagrams redundant with Category:Temporal diagrams? Themightyquill (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. I also noticed we have category:Timing diagrams. If all of these three are different concepts, then hatnotes should be added to avoid the mess. Just in case pinging user:Waldyrious--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, Estopedist1. For future reference, the current hierarchy is Category:Time diagrams → Category:Temporal diagrams → Category:Timing diagrams.
- I was the one who created Category:Temporal diagrams, but it was Allforrous who made it a child category of Category:Time diagrams, so my best guess is that I wasn't aware of the latter at the time — I probably searched in Category:Diagrams by type and Category:Time diagrams was not there (it still isn't). I would guess that Time diagrams and Temporal diagrams could indeed be merged.
- As for Category:Timing diagrams, looking at its current contents and the links in the description, it seems likely that it was meant to cover explicitly digital timing diagrams, i.e. in the context of digital signal processing. Hopefully its creator Mdd could confirm. If that is indeed the case then it would make sense to clarify the category's description and parent categories (and contents), but keep it as a separate category from Time diagrams/Temporal diagrams.
- --Waldyrious (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Redirected Category:Temporal diagrams to Category:Time diagrams (and copied Time Diagrams into diagrams by type). -- Themightyquill (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Empty category; I could find no suitable files to sort into this category. Mindmatrix 19:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Withdrawn: I found a file to sort here (after using the correct spelling - doh!). Mindmatrix 19:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't recall exactly when/why I might have made this category. I think there might have also been a map or few from the City of Windsor that may have been deleted. Or I probably saw the one image note about it and assumed there'd be more, whether of nature, buildings, the paved park path, etc. Apparently there's no great need to share or note it. The trail is a significant piece of East Windsor, but I certainly wouldn't miss it if you choose to delete the category. No objections. Delete it or leave it as you see fit. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note that I've already withdrawn the nomination to delete this category, as I found a file on Flickr that I uploaded to Commons and included in this category. Mindmatrix 14:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't recall exactly when/why I might have made this category. I think there might have also been a map or few from the City of Windsor that may have been deleted. Or I probably saw the one image note about it and assumed there'd be more, whether of nature, buildings, the paved park path, etc. Apparently there's no great need to share or note it. The trail is a significant piece of East Windsor, but I certainly wouldn't miss it if you choose to delete the category. No objections. Delete it or leave it as you see fit. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
stale disucssion. The sole file is not very helpful for this category. But because we have enwiki article, then I am neutral here--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
kept.--RZuo (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Propose renaming to Category:Women's panties. I believe "panties" is the more common English word. Wikipedia uses "panties" ("knickers" redirects there). Other categories on Commons use "panties", like the subcategories of this one "Topless women wearing panties", "Women wearing crop tops and panties", and "Women with white panties". I moved the category but my change was reverted. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support standardizing names, with redirects from alternate names. You make a good case for "panties", so I'd be fine with that. Further, if the other user undid your change via straight edits, as opposed to doing an actual move, that should be undone so that the history isn't lost. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Knickers is definitely regional, and I'm not opposed to a rename to Category:Women's panties, but I note that we have Category:Underpants and Category:Men's underpants. Wouldn't a move to Category:Women's underpants make sense? It seems like it might be the most generic/international term. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- I would support either (but panties is already used in other categories). World's Lamest Critic (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Knickers is definitely regional, and I'm not opposed to a rename to Category:Women's panties, but I note that we have Category:Underpants and Category:Men's underpants. Wouldn't a move to Category:Women's underpants make sense? It seems like it might be the most generic/international term. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough, those will need to be renamed as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at the English Wikipedia's clothing infobox, we see that panties are distinct from other types of underwear, such as thongs and underpants(!), which according to that site, are only for males. Brianjd (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: Has the wikipedia page changed since you wrote that, because I don't see anything like that. Quite the opposite - it lists thongs as a type of panties, and it says "In the United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa, Malaysia, Singapore and occasionally in other Commonwealth countries such as Australia and New Zealand, panties may be referred to as 'undies' or 'knickers'; 'knickers' can also refer to male underwear, while 'panties' generally refers only to female underwear. In Australia, men's underpants are often referred to as 'undies', although the word can also refer to women's underpants." So "panties" and "knickers" are regional, and "women's panties" is also largely redundant. "Women's underpants" again seems like the way to go. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I was referring to the clothing navbox (not infobox) and the w:underpants article. But now I see the article says underpants are for males in British English and both genders in American English. Brianjd (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: Has the wikipedia page changed since you wrote that, because I don't see anything like that. Quite the opposite - it lists thongs as a type of panties, and it says "In the United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa, Malaysia, Singapore and occasionally in other Commonwealth countries such as Australia and New Zealand, panties may be referred to as 'undies' or 'knickers'; 'knickers' can also refer to male underwear, while 'panties' generally refers only to female underwear. In Australia, men's underpants are often referred to as 'undies', although the word can also refer to women's underpants." So "panties" and "knickers" are regional, and "women's panties" is also largely redundant. "Women's underpants" again seems like the way to go. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Support It sounds like "underpants" is the best term here. It is afterall the name of the parent category, and while it may or may not be strictly normal terminology in all regions, it does seem like it would still be intelligible, and people form any region would be able to understand what was being referred to, moreso than the other, more regional terms.
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions |  Rename Category:Women's knickers to Category:Women's underpants | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
this cat is identical with its subcat Michelangelo's grave for Julius II and should be deleted Oursana (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Oursana: Is there any particular reason to have "Michaelangelo" in the title? The wikipedia article is at en:Tomb of Pope Julius II. I'm not sure why commons uses "Iulius" instead of "Julius". - Themightyquill (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- IMHo it is common sense to have at least the artist's name in a cat. not to hide the artworks, to trace the artwork back, especially in the cat you do not see the file. If you want further statements like that I go to look for it again--Oursana (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- The artist's name is only needed if the artwork's title is not unique. In this case, I assume that Pope Julius II has only one tomb, so the sculptor's name isn't needed to qualify which one it is. If you look at Category:Sculptures by Michelangelo Buonarroti, one of the parent categories of this one, you'll see that not all of the subcats specify the artist's name. The ones that do seem to have either titles that would be very generic without the artist's name or titles that have probably been used by other artists and therefore need qualifying. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- I contradict Auntof6. Commons:Naming categories#Principles: ...Commons rules regarding the naming of categories will differ from the matching Wikipedia rules:
- Names of Commons categories should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.
- So people who look for a work of Michelangelo will have to find this category without a long search. We do not have a ruling on commons The artist's name is only needed if the artwork's title is not unique. as stated above. And the subcats of Category:Sculptures by Michelangelo Buonarroti are generated just by chance, not observing the on commons unquestioned motif of generic. This would be a too complicated criterion for a general audience. So I continue to propose to delete the newer bad named cat and will do so when there is no other discussion.--Oursana (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Oursana, @Auntof6 and @Themightyquill: I don't think it's necessary to delete either of the two categories, since, according to English and Italian Wikipedias, with reference in the English version to Vincenzo Forcella's Iscrizioni delle chiese e d'altri edificii di Roma dal secolo XI fino ai giorni nostri (1875), Julius II is buried currently in the Vatican as his body was was transferred there from Michelangelo's monument at one time later. English Wikipedia's also cites that Julius II body, alongside Sixtus IV's, is currently buried on the floor in front of Clement X's monument in St. Peter's Basilica, with a "simple" marble tombstone marking the site. 83.61.231.21 13:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- In my point of view we do not need Category:Tomb of Iulius II, because there is only the subcat Michelangelo's grave for Julius II Or we keep it so that fotos from his real tomb can be taken there--Oursana (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Oursana, @Auntof6 and @Themightyquill: I don't think it's necessary to delete either of the two categories, since, according to English and Italian Wikipedias, with reference in the English version to Vincenzo Forcella's Iscrizioni delle chiese e d'altri edificii di Roma dal secolo XI fino ai giorni nostri (1875), Julius II is buried currently in the Vatican as his body was was transferred there from Michelangelo's monument at one time later. English Wikipedia's also cites that Julius II body, alongside Sixtus IV's, is currently buried on the floor in front of Clement X's monument in St. Peter's Basilica, with a "simple" marble tombstone marking the site. 83.61.231.21 13:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I contradict Auntof6. Commons:Naming categories#Principles: ...Commons rules regarding the naming of categories will differ from the matching Wikipedia rules:
- The artist's name is only needed if the artwork's title is not unique. In this case, I assume that Pope Julius II has only one tomb, so the sculptor's name isn't needed to qualify which one it is. If you look at Category:Sculptures by Michelangelo Buonarroti, one of the parent categories of this one, you'll see that not all of the subcats specify the artist's name. The ones that do seem to have either titles that would be very generic without the artist's name or titles that have probably been used by other artists and therefore need qualifying. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- IMHo it is common sense to have at least the artist's name in a cat. not to hide the artworks, to trace the artwork back, especially in the cat you do not see the file. If you want further statements like that I go to look for it again--Oursana (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Fair point. Alternatively, the parent category could be renamed "Category:Tombs of Iulius II" -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- I make a redirect to "Grave for Julius II by Michelangelo Buonarroti", importing categories --Sailko (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Do we really need this? If so, why is it so deserted by this moment? E4024 (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- @E4024: to be deleted. "By individual" seems to be unique phrase in categories' names. Seems to be redundant upper cat. We even haven't category:Individuals--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we do need this category or a similar one:
- There are now 24 subcategories. So it is not deserted anymore.
- For these subcategories we need a parent category like this one. With what category would you otherwise want to replace this one?
- JopkeB (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Since there were no objections for over a year, I close this discussion and keep the category. --JopkeB (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Shouldn't Category:Flower containers be a parent category to Category:Flowerpots rather than its child category? Maybe I'm missing something. Themightyquill (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Looking at these things, aren't they usually called Planters? In which case, merge and redirect. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- You might be right. I think of a planter as being a big outdoor box to hold multiple plants, but google doesn't seem to agree. There's certainly no specific difference between a container for a flower and a contain for other plants. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Support A pot is a kind of container, not contrariwise. --Elkost (talk) 06:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)