This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
"Red Indian" is archaic to the point of insulting. It's a term like "Negro", or worse. "Indian" itself is acceptable to many, even embraced by some (such as the American Indian Movement, but we usually use "Native American", which is more broadly accepted.
Most of these are tipis and should be recategorized as such
As far as I can tell, those (two, I believe) that are not tipis are not actually tents; they are probably hogans or some such, and should be placed in some more appropriately named category, which may need to be created.
At first i have to tell that my englisch is not very well so if you think that the names of the categories are not good please cange it. I made these categories with an old translation book and i have no problem if you make it better. I was very surprised how many pictures are now in the category tents and its sub categories. Thanks for your help --Ronaldino06:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like category creator has no problem with the move & removal. I'll do the moves, but the removal has to be done by an administrator. - Jmabel | talk03:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should they be kept as redirects or outright deleted? I prefer to keep redirect if there is a chance someone might try and recreate them if they don't exist. --pfctdayelise (????) 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the miscapitalization in the old name, there seems to me to be almost no chance of recreation. Ditto for the next one. - Jmabel | talk19:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done (BTW - if a category is empty, putting a tag on it like {{speedy|empty, badly named - correct name is Foo}} usually gets it deleted pretty quickly.) --pfctdayelise (????) 02:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Sounds like category creator has no problem with the removal. I can't do this, it has to be done by an administrator. - Jmabel | talk03:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think both categories should be kept. The plural category should be for specific languages. And the singular category for things that are related to language, but are not languages or related to a specific language. /90.229.135.23915:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Juiced Lemon, what is it that you oppose? Merging them, or using the plural form or the existence of any of the categories?
90.229.135.239, if that is indeed how the two categories are meant to be used then explanatory texts and perhaps a renaming to something clarifying this would be good. But from that point of view I can see why two categories would be needed. /Lokal_Profil16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed from “oppose” to “keep” for clarity. You didn't properly explain your intentions, so it was difficult to criticize them. I think that User:90.229.135.239 comments are pertinent. --Juiced lemon17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to keep this distinction. The concept of a language in general (Language, singular) is different to details about any specific language (subcat under Languages, plural). 'Language' is very abstract whereas 'Languages' content will be much more specific, but the fact that they're both filled -- with distinct contents -- seems to show that other people make this same distinction. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Categories should be in English unless there are special circumstances. I've got no clue on how to translate this though. /Lokal_Profil15:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English capitalisation remains one of the great mysteries to me. To learn from further previous misstakes lets let this last suggestion lie here for a while before we create it and if no one corrects-comments we'll create that category instead and {{Bad name}} the previous one./Lokal_Profil23:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) In English "Category:Maps of Roman Catholic dioceses of Poland" can sound like they are official state churches of Poland. As in "the official church of Poland." I prefer "Category:Maps of Roman Catholic dioceses in Poland".
The British monarch (at present, Elizabeth II), has the constitutional title of "Supreme Governor of the Church of England"; the Canons of the Church of England state, "We acknowledge that the Queen’s excellent Majesty, acting according to the laws of the realm, is the highest power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil".
The Church of England has a legislative body, the General Synod. Measures of Synod have to be approved but cannot be amended by the UK Parliament before receiving the Royal Assent and becoming part of the law of England. The church has its own judicial branch, known as the Ecclesiastical courts, which likewise form a part of the UK court system, and have powers especially in relation to the care of churches and churchyards and the discipline of the clergy.
So since there are official churches of countries it is important to use clearer English concerning Polish church categories. --Timeshifter23:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The circles categories are a bit of a mess at the moment. What I cannot fathom is what purpose the category circle is serving that isn't served by either circles or circles (geometry). Therefore I propose
I don't really have strong feelings regarding such a category. I think it might make plain circles easier to find, but it's not a must-have. --Rimshot13:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally sounds fine, I can see it would be good to have a category to put all those coloured rings in (simple svg circles of different colours) but I don't think 'plain circles' is quite right. Maybe also a category "Concentric rings" to match the page Concentric rings.
I will not have serious objections against a category for plain or simple circle-illustrations, but I wonder if it would not be better to leave them in/move them to category:circles, and make them easy accesible via a gallerypage. I started making one, plain circles, but decided to wait with the rest until it's decided whether there should be a separate category for them (in which case there would be no need for a gallery... ;-) Finn Rindahl18:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. An extra name between parenthesis is usally for disambiguation, but there is nothing to disambiguate
3. This category contains geometrical figures and, in my opinion, “to show a circle” is not a pertinent feature in order to properly categorize geometric figures. --Juiced lemon19:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for 1.: you're right of course, but I really wanted to fix circle first. 2. Well, yes there is. Anything with a circular form can be in the category circles, for example something like this. An image like this, on the other hand is about the geometric properties of a circle - it's therefore rightfully in the category Circles (geometry). Of course there is no need to separate these, but it is a natural way, I think, of diffusing the category. 3. That might be something to argue about, but I think in the example I gave it is quite a pertinent feature that this image contains a circle. --Rimshot21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've summarized the positions so far, you may vote here if you wish. I hope this gets the discussion a bit organized. For the other issues, it might be best to start under a new heading. --Rimshot12:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGallery. If plain circles are what you are looking for, you should be given an easy way to find them. After some thinking I prefer a gallery, because it can group the circles by colour/structure/anything. I cannot think of a better name, but go ahead if you know one.--Rimshot12:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed this summary before. I believe we should go through with the three suggestions above, and I'm willing to take responsibility for expanding that gallerypage I started. I'm not going to vote, however, since I belive this is a matter that could (and should) be resolved by consent, and not by voting. If there were two distinctly different alternatives voting might be "the last way out", I don't believe that's the case here :-) Finn Rindahl12:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there is no kind of process yet for CFDs on commons. I thought a "vote" might be a good way to make the different points of view clearer. --Rimshot13:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having had another look I find I now see the point of having a category:plain circles as well, they're now easy available in the gallery (thank you rimshot!) and are just confusing category:circles... Sorry for speaking against this initially :-( Finn Rindahl22:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Started: I've moved the subcategories and pages, and placed a category redirect. A number of images still need to be moved. --rimshottalk12:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
You can't change just those two categories since they are part of the Category:Soccer-tree. Either they are all socer or they are all something else. Since Category:Football is a supercategory for both American football, soccer and other "football sports" the only other alternative to soccer would be association football. As far as I understood that had even less support then soccer so therefore Category:Soccer it is. /Lokal_Profil01:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JeremyA however. Soccer is not a word used in England or any other part of the world except in the United States. The correct term is "Football in England". If you want to talk about American football, then a category could be named "American football in England". I have problems changing every category to "Soccer something" simply because that is the American term, however not the term used in Britain. Gryffindor22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at Category:Football you'll see that football can be any of 6 sports. The alternative to "soccer" would be "association football" so I'd say soccer is the lesser of two evils. /Lokal_Profil00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Objection: Soccer is an American English term that is not used in Britain or in France or Germany. I don't think there is a disambiguation clash, since "Football something X" in the European frame clearly refers to "Soccer" and not anything else. Gryffindor22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, Category:Soccer (and its substructure) is for association football. I personally disagree with the use of this American English term. But, I disagree also with the infraction to the Universality principle (see Commons:Naming categories). So, if you want to maintain your position, open a discussion about the renaming of Category:Soccer. --Juiced lemon22:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all agree that Category:football should be a topcategory for all types of football (there are more than two) anything else would lead to World War 3. So then the choice is "Association football" or "soccer", I believe that more people (non-american and american) would recoignise soccer then association football. Anyhow as long as the top category is soccer the subcategories should be called the same thing, the same thing goes for the "American football" subcategories. /Lokal_Profil23:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about we leave all categories concerning (Association) football in the United States under the term "Soccer X" such as "Soccer venues in the United States", and the rest of the world with "Football X"? In the English Wikipedia they came up with a solution "Football (Soccer)". Maybe not the best solution but at least it's still a compromise. I think the overarching category Category:Football can remain as it is, since it concerns all forms. "Association Football" is not a good idea IMO because let's face it nobody uses that term in the general sense. Gryffindor14:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well we agree to let the category "Football" alone. Now we have to find a proper name instead of "Soccer" in that case. So I think we should just cut the gordian knot and have it as "Football (Soccer)" since that has been chewed over in the English Wikipedia more than enough and that's what the consensus was over there. Gryffindor22:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the need to change from "soccer" to "football" for the non-U.S. countries, but to change "football" to "American football" for the United States is similarly wrong. Just like the rest of the world doesn't call it soccer, we in the states don't call it American football - it's just football. In the case of college football, where the reference is clearly most common to the system involving American football, a notice can be placed similar to the one on the category at the English Wikipedia. It may not be the prettiest category structure, but it's currently downright wrong. --Fuzzy51022:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The heading of this discussion might currently be slightly missleading. We're no longer talking about changing soccer to football, it's about changing all the subcategories of Soccer with football in their name and similar for the subcategories of American football. Additionally there is also a discussion about an alternative naming of the Soccer category-tree (but not just football). /Lokal_Profil13:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have two options: either have "American Football" and "Association Football", or leave "Football" for both American and European categories, which is potentially confusing though. Gryffindor16:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a joke. Unless we state a new definition, different than the one in the English Wikipedia, football is the name given to a number of different team sports, including American football.
According to the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
, the etymology of soccer is: From alteration of assoc., abbreviation of association football. “Soccer” is a specific term of the American language, which is not popular in an international context. So, I think that Category:Soccer is unsuitable in Wikimedia Commons.
In my opinion, we have 3 main alternatives for the renaming of this category:
Category:Football, because Association football is a very popular game, so the word “association” is commonly ommitted, like in Manchester United F.C.. The current contents would be moved to Category:Football games or Category:Football sports
Assuming that we apply the Universality principle (see Commons:Naming categories#Principles), the name of the parent category X will be used “as is” to build subcategory names, like “Category:X in England”.
This poll aim to choose a name to refer to “association football” (see football (soccer)) in any category of the topics structure in Wikimedia Commons.
D. Football and contents of current category moved to Category:Fooball games
E. Football and contents of current category moved to Category:Fooball sports
A valid vote is an ordered list of different alternatives (at least one alternative), amongst the alternatives which will be listed on September, 1st, 0:00 am. Examples of valid votes:
A
A,B,C,D
There will be a votes count for each couple of alternatives. (A,B) is the number of times A is preferred to B.
vote A means (A,B)=+1, (A,C)=+1 (A,D)=+1 (assuming there are 4 alternatives)
vote A,B,C,D means (A,B)=+1, (A,C)=+1, (A,D)=+1, (B,C)=+1, (B,D)=+1, (C,D)=+1 (assuming there are 4 alternatives)
This count will determine which alternative(s) is (are) preferred to all other ones. We will possibly decide between the remaining alternatives with a points count (1st place=1 point, 2nd place=2 points...): the alternative with the lowest total will be choosed.
--Juiced lemon10:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that alternative D should probably be crossed out for the sake of peace. Since the name can in fact mean a whole family of sports (and is currently the category for this family) or any of the sports therin depending on in which country one is. All the other three names would however be unique for the sport in question. /Lokal_Profil16:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the alternatives, except one, will be crossed out after the votes count. Anybody can add his own alternative, and the bad ones will be censored by the voters. --Juiced lemon18:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I might have a preference I don't care which of the names the category tree goes under the main thing is that we pick one and stick with it because the current structure isn't sustainable. Currently the main category is called Soccer but within it are lots of subcategories starting with Football, to add to this confusion Soprani has now added the category Football (soccer) and is slowly migrating subcategories Soccer to this name. Similarly within American football there are lots of subcategories starting with Football.
Now when I tried to request renaming of subcategories to the current (at that point) standard (i.e. Soccer and American football) that was stopped. Similarly after an new attempt to make the structure uniform (now under the name Association football) that was also stopped. So rather then just stopping the structuring come with useful advice on how you think the situation might best be resolved because if nothing is done this category tree is going to become even more caotic. /Lokal_Profil22:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. Something must be done and this vote, however few people took part in it, is all that we have at the moment. I think that most people do not have a very strong opinion on the name of the categories, as long as the categories are consistently named. If Siebrand isn't going to add them to User:CommonsDelinker/commands, where can we find an admin who will? --rimshottalk17:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to process the requests until I saw the massive amount of "soccer this" and "soccer that" categories that need to be moved. To me, they tell of a consensus far greater than what was the result of this voting.
There should be a real vote, in which over 20 people would participate, that is announced properly, to decide which name is best. The above listed vote included only 5 voters, and for now there is no solution accepted. Migdejong17:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would've voted E, D, C, but I must admit I do not understand the voting process completely. Should we have a new vote, perhaps accounting for the votes previously added? Migdejong18:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't give grounds to that. If anybody could block any decision for specious reasons, that would lead to a terrible mess, since nobody will care to take part in votings which would be ineffective. --Juiced lemon19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you can see above, the results were not accepted, due to the fact only 6 voters showed up. If you have more voters you can finally fix this issue. Migdejong19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most decisions are taken and have been taken without any poll. In some cases, the decision is made by a single user, when nobody has opposed. Organize a poll is not mandatory, that is just an easy way to collect opinions from other users who have not taken part in the discussion. There is no rule stating that a minimal participation is requested to valid the result of the poll (this is not an election), and such rule would be currently a nonsense.
This vote has been accepted, but the decision is not yet fully implemented. A new vote will not change anything to this situation. More, you cannot guess neither the future number of voters, nor the “requested” (by whom?) number.
Well I'll just have to start another poll then. You seem very dedicated to a poll that is not accepted by anyone, due to low numbers. Remeber there are no rules, whatsoever, for anything. But to change 200+ cats, there needs to be some acceptible compromise or a clear vote. Apparently 6 voters are not enough. 20 should be. Migdejong20:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who have told you this poll is not accepted by anyone? The only person who refused to implement the result of the voting? Six voters for only 200 categories is an exceptionnaly high ratio. We have already changed several thousands of categories as a result of a single decision, without poll, with 2 users again a third one. This poll is perfectly valid and its result is lawful. A new poll about the same subject would be very questionable. --Juiced lemon21:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Is there any reason at all that this isn't Category:Historical markers? I notice that there is exactly one item in the latter, which is not hooked into the category tree, but it's the one that follows our naming rules. Can we just get a bot on this? - Jmabel | talk19:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have some additional requests for cat renames based on this request. If this is a clear reason for the capitalisation that is currently used, please explain why. Siebrand07:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Canada National Historic Sites to Category:National historic sites of Canada (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Canada National Historic Sites;National historic sites of Canada;r;
Rename Category:Historic Sites Schleswig-Holstein to Category:History of Schleswig-Holstein (428 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Historic Sites Schleswig-Holstein;History of Schleswig-Holstein;r;
3. Category:National historic sites of the United States (designations by National Register of Historic Places, Federal government of the United States)
National Historic Sites is a proper noun, at least in the US. I can't speak for other countries. So I'd leave it capitalized. ++Lar: t/c12:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2 of my proposals are grounded on the spelling of List of national historic sites of Canada. A proper name usually point to an unique entity. Plural for proper names is odd, in my opinion. In the other hand, you can still have plural in a proper name, like National Register of Historic Places, but it is an unique organization. --Juiced lemon15:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first three will be moved now. Please rephrase what you like done to the fourth. I'm not sure I understand. Cheers! Siebrand07:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, State Historic Sites of the United States is a wrong category name, because you can interpret it as a category for historical sites registered by a state institution. I didn't find such state institutions. Since this category is an erroneous concept, it's useless to rename it unless we can find an appropriate subject.
Ah, OK, I understand. Done. Cheers! P.s. please take a look at the cats to be renamed in the topic at the bottom of this page. Siebrand10:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
All the map categories in both Category:Maps and Category:Maps by theme are geographically based. I checked them all. Non-geographically-based maps have been removed. They are linked from a note at the top of Category:Maps. It says
Since Category:Maps by theme is just more geographically-based map categories it is very confusing. And why did you do this. History maps are a common geographically-based map subcategory. See w:Category:Maps of Egypt for example. It has a history map subcategory.
See also w:Category:Maps of the Middle East. It has a history map subcategory. See also w:Category:Maps. It also has a history map subcategory. So at all levels history maps are an integral top-level subcategory.
I categorize a lot of maps. Please note the subcategory system at w:Category:Maps. It does not have a "Maps by theme" category. It just puts all the themes (topics) at the top level, and then subdivides from there. It makes a lot more intuitive sense. --Timeshifter16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was a bit uclear. Obviously all of the maps in the category are geographical maps. What I meant was that the main subdivision is by geographical subdivision i.e. Maps by continent, Maps by cities, etc. The by theme maps are different in that they present mor then mere geographical information.
Also not that the en.wiki maps category also doesen't have Maps by cartographer, Maps by century made, Maps by century shown, Maps by language, etc. /Lokal_Profil17:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see w:Geography. Geography covers much more than borders, boundaries, and topography. All the topics covered by Category:Maps by theme are also geographical categories. Follow w:Category:Geography down the subcategory tree, and see the vast territory covered by the name "geography".
For example; history maps are oftentimes just old mappings of borders and cities. They would come under your more narrow categorization for geographical maps. But some of the history maps have battles marked, etc.. So how does one categorize history maps, then? At the top level Category:Maps, or by the history theme? How do we categorize Maps by century made, Maps by century shown, etc.. Those are also on the history theme.
They are currently categorized under Category:Maps. See the problem? If geography was a narrow category with a narrow definition, then I would agree with you concerning the need for Category:Maps by theme. But it just adds another confusing layer.
(Unindent) OK. I can see some benefits from having a "Maps by theme" category. As long as people know to look for it. I edited the introduction of Category:Maps. Here is part of the current introduction:
This category's subcategories are for geographically-based maps. The top level categories are for basic geography maps of countries, cities, continents, regions, seas, etc..
See the subcategory Category:Maps by theme for many additional, geographically-based maps covering history, archaeology, economics, politics, military, battles, flags, linguistics, sports, religion, population, ethnography, geology, geographic features, bio-geography, fisheries, disease, topography, protected areas, site plans, transport, bridges, communications, celestial maps, time zones, weather, music, etc.. See also the Atlas index. Atlases are organized and commented collections of geographical, political and historical maps. See also: Category:Satellite pictures.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
User:Juiced lemon keeps removing Category:SVG maps from being a subcategory of Category:Maps. He also keeps removing the SVG map subcategories from the relevant map categories for nations, continents, regions, etc..
What's the reason for doing that?? I find it very helpful to be able to find SVG maps via the category system. But OK, I might have missed something - I'm new around here, so I'm willing to listen&learn ;-) Finn Rindahl16:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Unindent). I think that is his reasoning, but I am not sure. Commons:Categories#Category structure does not prevent an SVG map category from being categorized both by media type and topic. It says "All categories (except CommonsRoot) should be contained in at least one other category,"
Please also see w:Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories do not form a tree. It says "each category can appear in more than one parent category." It says "it may be convenient to think of parts of the category graph as being like multiple overlapping trees."
In my opinion Juiced Lemon should have the courtesy to leave the categorization in place while it is being discussed. Since he is currently in the minority. It seems that this lack of courtesy is a habit. Juiced Lemon has been mentioned unfavorably many times at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. --Timeshifter08:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“Divided” involves that you may not interconnect these substructures as you want. When you look at the talk page, you see that access to the Topics substructure is preferred. There are some reasons to that:
1. This substructure is the most useful to Commons readers
2. Every media file would be found in this only substructure.
Therefore, easy browsing in the Topics structure is an essentiel element of the success of Commons project. That means that the reader must easily understand the Topics organization, then find the way to reach the wanted media files.
That's why the categories of the Topics substructure have to be cleared of most interconnections between the 6 substructures. When a category contains several subcategories, you can logically expect to find different media files in each subcategory. That would not be true, if we allow interconnections. Any file in Category:SVG maps of Mexico is already far better categorized in Category:Maps of Mexico: Category:SVG maps of Mexico is a wrong track. More, media files are mainly selected according to their overall quality, not according the only criterion “to be a SVG file”.
I believe that an SVG map category tree is beneficial to the project. I did not create the SVG map category tree. But it seem that the project is encouraging SVG images. Category:SVG maps was started in January 2006. See the history:
Interconnections between category trees is normal and encouraged. Why did you remove Category:SVG maps from being a subcategory of Category:Maps? How else do you expect people to find these SVG maps?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding about categorization. Strict hierarchies do not work, because topics are interconnected.
Each Wikipedia article can appear in more than one category, and each category can appear in more than one parent category. Multiple categorization schemes co-exist simultaneously. In other words, categories do not form a strict hierarchy or w:tree structure, but a more general w:directed acyclic graph (or close to it; see below).
Nevertheless, parts of the category graph will be tree-like, and it may be convenient to think of parts of the category graph as being like multiple overlapping trees. When applying the guidelines above, consider each tree to be independent of the overlapping trees. A person browsing through a hierarchy should find every article that belongs in that hierarchy. This can lead to a good deal of debate as to what the hierarchies actually are. To clarify the structure of the hierarchy and help people browse through it, you can add a classification to each category. For more about this, see w:Wikipedia:Classification. [End of quote]
A key point is "A person browsing through a hierarchy should find every article that belongs in that hierarchy." That means interconnections are essential. That means that the SVG maps category tree, Category:SVG maps, for example, needs to be interconnected with the map category tree, Category:Maps. --Timeshifter09:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a very personal manner to interpret other users' interventions. You are currently the only user who questionned the removal of SVG categories from the Topics substructure. --Juiced lemon11:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Category:SVG maps is a map category and an SVG category. You seem to be the only person who does not want SVG maps categorized in map categories.
3 people have questioned your removal of it from map categories.
My "questioning" above was indeed just that, asking a question hoping that the answer would give me some understanding of the matter being discussed. I (hope I) now have a better understanding... Since I've just started drawing new maps using inkscape, I find the SVG maps categories very helpful as a place to find sources to copy from. For these purposes SVG maps as subcategories under topic categories would be helpful. I think, however, that for most users searching for illustrations and such, "mediatype" and "Copyright stats" (or for that matter "user") as subcategories of the topic catoegories will only be confusing. I'm starting to get to know my way around here, so for me it is not a problem to browse from top category Category:SVG maps down to a certain geographical area, and then do a cross check in the main category for that area to see whether there are better .png, .gif etc maps. So, to summarise: I believe that there should be topical substructures in mediatypes, but not mediatype subcats to topics. I.e. SVG maps and sub to SVG files ( and maybeCategory:Maps at this top level), then Category:SVG maps of Europe as sub to SVG maps but not to category:Maps of Europe and so on. I concider the Topical categories our "main" categories, the catsystem that makes our mediafiles available for the public. The other categories are only there to help us (active commons user) organize tha content. A file only categorised as "copyright:GFDL" or "type:SVG" or "source:Flickr" is in practical terms uncategorized. Finn Rindahl12:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then that means all the SVG maps will have to be individually categorized under their topics. It would be a lot easier just to make Category:SVG maps of Mexico a subcategory of Category:Maps of Mexico. I will go and categorize the individual SVG images in that category now to show you what I mean. So ALL the individual SVG images will be categorized in both Category:SVG maps of Mexico and Category:Maps of Mexico. This seems like such a waste of valuable time. But it is important that the average reader is able to find all the maps of Mexico. Even if the categorization scheme is illogical and wastes everybody's time just to make one person, User:Juiced lemon happy in his unique categorization scheme which is different from all other wikipedia map categorization schemes. Because interconnecting category trees is allowed everywhere except in the mind of User:Juiced lemon. --Timeshifter12:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question for me is not was is "allowed" or not, but what is most practical for the average user. I may have been unclear above: I agree with Juiced Lemon that Category:SVG maps of Mexico should not be a subcategory of Category:Maps of Mexico and so on. Further, to both Timeshifter and JL, assume good faith and keep in mind that we're discussing in order to find the best solution. :-) Finn Rindahl12:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume good faith on both your parts. I just don't think either of you are thinking clearly about the issues. I have started checking all the individual images in Category:SVG maps of Mexico to see that they are all categorized under Category:Maps of Mexico or one of its subcategories. Because it is important that the average reader is easily able to find all the maps of Mexico. --Timeshifter12:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finn Rindahl. You wrote: "what is most practical for the average user." Is it not most practical for the reader if the reader can go directly to the SVG map category? Is not the most important element of an SVG map the fact that it is a map? Many objects can be categorized under multiple topics. So categorization can not be strictly hierarchal for those objects. Those objects are normally categorized in those multiple topics. It is common throughout wikipedia and the commons. I checked all the Mexico SVG maps. They were nearly all already categorized in multiple categories. Including separate SVG map and Mexico map cateogories. So why do we categorize the individual maps in multiple categories but not Category:SVG maps of Mexico? It is illogical, and goes against the existing categorization rules as I have quoted several times already. The existing commons rules override the peculiar categorization schemes of Juiced lemon. --Timeshifter21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that User:Jeff G. may agree with me. See this diff:
There seems to be a number of mis-conceptions involved in this discussion, so I will make some points.
This is not wikipedia, categories have a very specific use here which is different from the way they're used on wikipedia.
As described by User:Juiced lemon the category structure is a number of inter-twined but independent trees starting at the same root. ie the branches weave through each other but a branch on one tree doesn't suddenly get grafted onto another tree.
The category structure is very definitely a hierarchical tree (well 6 trees as described above). Loops and nailing branches of different trees together destroys the structure and makes tools like catscan useless.
SVG is a 'media type', not a 'topic', so however strange it might seem it is on a different tree. The appropriate linking would be some sort of 'see also' link, not grafting branches of one tree onto another.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Commons Wikimedia is not hypertext encyclopedia, but a vault for data storage. So, use of category pages is incidental in the Wikipedia projects, but essential in the Commons project. Therefore, we are not required to copy our Topics substructure from other encyclopedia projects.
In particular, we have to provide clear and clean structures in order to allow easy browsing. They are thousands regions or areas on the Earth, and we cannot build understanding and manageable structures without scheme.
As I said already on your user talk page we should use the existing categorization methods. The methods used at BOTH wikimedia commons and wikipedia. You are the one trying to propose a radically different categorization scheme. The Middle East crosses over 2 continents, Asia and Africa. So it will not fit in YOUR proposed categorization scheme. But it fits fine in the existing commons categorization scheme.
Commons:Categories#Category structure does not prevent interconnections between categories. It says "All categories (except CommonsRoot) should be contained in at least one other category."
Juiced lemon is removing satellite picture subcategories from overall satellite picture categories. He uses the edit summary "pictures are not drawings". Juiced lemon is oftentimes illogical in his categorization. He has been mentioned unfavorably many times at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. He ignores much of what people say to him. He ignores my replies to his points here.
I believe Juiced lemon is also wrong to remove satellite pictures from being subcategories of maps. It depends on how one defines maps. Many atlases include satellite pictures. Oftentimes satellite pictures have lines drawn in for the borders. Mapmakers want easy access to the satellite photos in order to add borders, cities, labels, etc.. And in any case the satellite pictures show topographical features. Topographical maps are considered maps. And finally, people looking for maps often want to see satellite maps/photos. For the topographic elements. I do. I believe that much of the whole problem with Juiced lemon is that he doesn't look at map categorization from the point of view of the average reader. --Timeshifter20:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since satellite pictures are not considered maps by some people I will remove them from map categories. I can link to them instead as a related category. --Timeshifter17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Some bot filled up this section with hundreds of maps of villages in US states, primarily Michigan, Ohio, NM, Missouri. I discovered it while looking for some generic village images. I moved some singletons over to where they belong, but it will take another bot to fix this. There are proper cats for:
I'll do something with category.py tidy. For this I'll have to add some cats to Category:Villages by country first, to get the choices. Please give me some time. Placement in this category is done by CommonSense. Unfortunately this does not always work exactly right :) Siebrand16:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Darn. The bot does not work... I have asked a developer to take a closer look at it. I have reverted the temporary changes I had made to some categories. Siebrand17:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Is there any intelligible distinction between Category:Musical genres and Category:Musical groups by genre? If so, could someone clarify in text on the respective category pages and look to see if the subcategories make consistent sense? Thanks.
In theory Musical groups by genre could be a subcategory of Musical genres (and musical groups) but that requires that we have some content that belongs to Musical genres but not musical groups by genre. I don't know what that content would be. Samulili08:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All images of sheet music, for one ;) . Musical instruments sometimes are associated with a certain genre. There are loads of sound samples of certain styles of music, these belong to a genre, not to a musical group. So, Category:Musical groups by genre should be a subcategory of Musical genres. As for images directly in Category:Musical groups by genre: in a dream world everyone would categorize their uploads in a meaningful way, but unfortunately, it isn't so. --rimshottalk09:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be obvious that when one is categorizing musical groups by genre, the genre is a musical one. Therefore there is no reason to repeat the word. Samulili19:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 reasons to do so:
1. Each artistic domain can have its own genres, like musical genres or literary genres: we don't save anything to confuse them.
I have to say I agree with Samulili here. As for your reasons: I don't quite understand 1., I am afraid. Are you saying that it's problematic that there is a musical as well as a literary style Baroque? I don't see how that can be a problem. And your second reason: if someone doesn't understand "genre", he won't understand "musical genre" either. If someone doesn't understand "musical group", the whole point is moot, as he will never even have arrived at the category "Category:Musical groups" and therefore will never need to find out what "Musical groups by genre" is about. I cannot think of a scenario where adding redundant information will help in any way. --rimshottalk09:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat what I said above: you know that they don't belong there, I know, and Juiced lemon knows. The people who put them there don't know, unfortunately. I guess your (repeated) remark about that made it seem like you weren't so sure either that they really don't belong there. I have added a few words to Category:Musical groups by genre, to make it clearer to others as well. --rimshottalk09:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
When I get home later today I want to start a renaming/harmonisation of categories "Location maps ..." to "Locator maps of ... in ...". I have the commands ready on User:Siebrand/test. Please double check for any typos and/or inconsistencies. Cheers! Siebrand07:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About six months ago, I opened a discussion at the village pump about the standard form for locator maps. The result (as I remember it) was:
Locator maps of [WHAT TO LOCATE] [PREPOSITION] [WHERE TO LOCATE]
PREPOSITION is determined according to custom rules:
when [WHAT TO LOCATE] is a settlement (city, village, etc.), PREPOSITION=in
In for settlements and of for administrative areas, is that the general idea? I support that but where do you draw the line? Samulili11:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it may not look 100% correct, I am in favour of a convention that uses the same words in all forms. Especially to newcomers and occasional visitors, the subtle differences are annoying, even if there is a logic to it. Any thoughts? Siebrand14:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't draw any line. Settlements and subdivisions (areas) are assumed to have specific common names. Then, the name of the Commons categories are determined according to this common name (which points a settlement or a subdivision). In Commons, some users have mixed lowest level administrative areas with settlements. I didn't take care of that, though I disapprove, at least because there were too few discussions and explanations about this operation. --Juiced lemon15:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see. I guess I'll have to agree. I'll rename as stated above and ask when in doubt. Thanks for the input.. Cheers! Siebrand15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the list of commands on User:Siebrand/test and the commands are running now. It is going to run unattended in the coming hours. Please let me know if I screwed up somewhere and I'll correct. Cheers! Siebrand16:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do. Would you take a look at the topic Category:Historical Markers a little higher up this page and voice opinion? Cheers! Siebrand09:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
At User:Siebrand/test I have prepared 125 category moves from Locator maps for ... to Locator maps of ..., but as you may have figured, I am still at a loss on of vs. in as the second preposition. Please correct the list and let me know when it is done. I'll start the moves then. Thanks for the help. Cheers! P.s. I have things in a spreadsheet, so if many things need changing, let me know here, so I can fix the sources. That will save me time preparing the commands for the bot. Siebrand15:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Do not move the categories between WAIT and /WAIT, due to incorrect naming or categorization which cannot be solved quickly. --Juiced lemon19:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This category is intended to contain logos and other material directly related to Wikisource (like other categories foe Wikimedia projects). But it does also contain files that are used by Wikisource, like scanned text and images from books and audio recordings of books. I don't think such media is really related to Wikisource, and should be categorised by what it is instead of where it is mostly used. /Ö20:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Flanders is an historic region, which overlaps Belgium, France, and the Netherlands. The category is currently used for both the Flemish Region and the Flemish Community.
The categorizations of the historic region, the region of Belgium, and the linguistic community are obviously very different.
recover Category:Flanders for media files which are related to the historic region
individualize the different subjects for better understanding, to establish correct interwiki links with Wikipedia articles, and approprate categorization
name each category according to the correct names of these subjects (references: English Wikipedia and this official page).
Flanders as a historic region used to be a countship coinciding with the current provinces West-Vlaanderen and Oost-Vlaanderen, later it used to overlap parts of Belgium, France and the Netherlands. This no longer so. Currently Flanders (see this official site) is the part of Belgium, consisting of the 5 Flemish provinces. In the Netherlands the erstwhile overlap is now called Zeeuws-Vlaanderen, in France: la Flandre française (French Flanders) (which is not the same as Vlaanderen). I strongly oppose the move. Lycaon18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to the person who gave me a civility warning for this comment, "Stupid Flanders" is a Homer Simpson quote. I thought it would be funny (if off-topic). It has nothing to do with Flemish people of today. -Nard19:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lesson for all of us that pop-cultural references originating in North American Anglophone culture will not always be recognised in ou multicultural and multilingual milieu! I didn't recognise the original reference, but your explanation gave me a chortle. Thanks all! Man vyi19:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just put an Brit and an American thogether: there already you have a completely different sense of humor. Let alone when switching to "real" different languages. --Foroa20:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I attempted sort the content to subcategories. Changes that I made was especially this: the separation of schemes of route signs to the subcategory Diagrams of route signs of the United States (and its subcategory Diagrams of route signs of the United States by state). This way is necessary to accosiation U. S. route signs in the common worldwide uponcategory Category:Route signs with route signs of non-american countries. Do take note, that the worldwide category Traffic signs is two years since redirected to Category:Road signs, meaning all of types of traffic signs. Maybe a misunderstanding have a linguistic base.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Well, my dictionary gives lightning as non-countable mass noun. That means that there is no plural. This coincides with my personal feeling that "lightnings" is not a proper English word. If you insist on a plural form, try "lightning flashes". Where did you get the information that lightnings is a proper form? --rimshottalk09:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The American Heritage® Dictionary gives a plural form with s ending. However, I agree that “lightnings”, “lightning flashes” and “flashes of lightning” match the same subject. I have no preference between these three names. So, choose the most used one. --Juiced lemon10:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is lightnings an American thing, then? Lightning is often given as an example of an uncountable noun.[1][2]Wiktionary gives "lightnings" as archaic plural, so maybe that's what it is. Finally, the word "lightnings" on the page you linked is a verb form, not a noun. --rimshottalk12:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
User:Jeff G. refused to revert his move, arguing that “Record label” was an American English expression. He still added companies and audio equipment subcategories to Category:Audio by brand.
My first concern is to restore a category matching the initial subject (brands for audio records). This category could be Category:Record labels, or an alternative name. I am trying to find a consensus about the destination category.
First of all, I agree that Category:Audio by brand is not a very good name for a category. Besides not fitting with the conventions, it also is not very clear what the category is about. If we need a different category structure then, could we first try to find out what it is we need to categorize?
Record companies, the most common name for which is record label. Record label refers to the brand rather than the company, but that shouldn't make much of a difference. We might try to find a less ambiguous name than Category:Record labels for that.
Record labels, that is, the labels that are on records. These should reside in Category:Gramophone records. If there is a category for a certain record company, then the images should also be in the category for that particular company, of course. I don't think we need a separate category tree "recordings belonging to a certain record company", as these images are very few indeed.
Audio companies, that means companies that produce any kind of audio equipment. These could go in a category like enWP's Audio equipment manufacturers.
Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION is not "our conventions", it's your dream. My concept of this category covers the following (which maybe can get get their own subcategories at some point, given enough images, time for categorization, and time for copyright expiration):
audio equipment/hardware by brand (such as Sharp and Aiwa stereos, Apple iPods, guitars, amps, drums, cymbals, mikes, violins, clarinets, flutes, Category:Gramophone Company record players, radios, tape players, and CD players)
audio records by brand (blank and pre-recorded (where Category:Record labels and Category:Gramophone Company would fit), such as entire records, just their labels, their dustjackets, and their inserts)
reel-to-reel audio tape by brand (blank (such as 3M and BASF) and pre-recorded)
audio cassettes by brand (8-track tape, standard, mini, micro, etc. (blank (such as 3M, Maxell, Radio Shack, TDK, and Memorex) and pre-recorded (such as Columbia Records)))
audio CDs by brand (blank (including CD-R and CD-RW, such as 3M and TDK) and pre-recorded (such as Columbia Records))
digital audio content by brand (such as Apple iTunes and Napster)
music producers by brand (what Category:Record labels generally means in the US, such as Columbia Records, Virgin Records, and Edison Records)
music sales outlets by brand (such as HMV, Target, Sam Ash, CD World, Radio Shack, and traditional record stores)
So what's the point of dumping them all in one lot? And where's the borderline between 'audio equipment' and 'electronic parts', 'audio outlets' and 'supermarkets' (for those non-US territories where 'traditional record stores' completely succumbed to competition)? My vote for keeping hardware makers, retailers and producers apart. NVO (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with having an "audio by brand" category, but certainly we should also have a category "recording companies" or "record labels". - Jmabel ! talk00:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Because the former was created first (by the same user, who has also created other apparent duplicate categories) and has more entries, perhaps? I think the choice is rather arbitrary, but we should avoid redundancy. —LX (talk, contribs)19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent a lot of time to undo some of this user's edits. What is the purpose of Category:Round?
I think some users confuse categories with keywords. Categories are software features for browsing, and have to be cautiously used. --Juiced lemon20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I suppose it's not the most meaningful name for a category. If either of the categories in question are kept, they should be used judiciously. Category:Circles would probably be a better category in most cases. "Round" isn't really well-defined geometrically or in any other way. —LX (talk, contribs)21:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the deletion of Category:Round forms, so don't say I stray from the issue, when you are doing so. In any case, if you wish, we may discuss other issues here as well. I think that an image like this belongs rather to Category:Round than to Category:Circles. As I said, if we keep to the point we have a higher chance in finishing this particular discussion. If you want to discuss the merit of Category:Round or Category:Shapes, please start a new discussion. --rimshottalk12:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A category is not needed in order to tag a picture. Another user explained in the village pump that you can add any tag with a template, like {{keyword}}. Then, you can search media files with the catscan tools, and select the templates you want or don't want.
Accumulation of category links doesn't help to browse through the database. I think that these links have to be limited, in order to allow the reader to understand the scheme of Commons category structures. --Juiced lemon11:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to that discussion? A quick search hasn't given me much information about this template. As Man vyi said, though, how am I to find pictures of round things? We can expect (most) users to know about categories, can we expect them to know about the CatScan tool? --rimshottalk12:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was possibly refering to my suggestion tagged onto the end of this discussion (look for the paragragh Well, there is a solution™.) or other similar previous or subsequent versions. But I think the idea of tagging images by features that don't really describe the image but break it down to elements is re-creating a classification system that has previously been advocated Commons:Image_classification_system, but not adopted. "This is a system that does not describe the purpose or typical usage of an image, only its content" (eg a sheriffs badge is classified as a 'seven pointed star'). This seems to be the ultimate classification system thats starts with the idea of lets categorize it as 'round' - if this system is implimented our category system isn't really suited to it, but perhaps template tags could be used (but this is a huge job). As for the 'catscan' tool, it is on every category page, so is not completely obscure :-) --Tony Wills09:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. In that case, of course, the question remains: how do I come up with the idea to search for a template named round? The category system allows navigation through a tree, which makes for much more natural discovery of categories. As for the catscan link: there is no catscan link when you're using the Cologne Blue skin, as I do ;) --rimshottalk12:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Done (BTW - if a category is empty, putting a tag on it like {{speedy|empty, badly named - correct name is Foo}} usually gets it deleted pretty quickly.) --pfctdayelise (????) 02:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep --Juiced lemon 11:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Support The name should be Category:Circles, by convention. --Rimshot 12:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm more concerned about this record: The longest running CfD request. :) Rocket000(talk) 18:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
