Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2011/06
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive June 2011
can be deleted, correct cat is Category:Embassy of Germany in Stockholm Prolineserver (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Redirected to pre-existing category Embassy of Germany in Stockholm. I'm closing the discussion early, because it seems uncontroversial. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Please delete - I created it using incorrect capitalisation. S a g a C i t y (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
What is the benefit compared to Category:Nude women? IMHO is it unimportant to know if these women are the wife of someone. Leyo 11:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, merge it to Category:Nude women. There isn't even a Category:Wives (or Category:Husbands, for that matter). Jafeluv (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's what I thought should be done. --Leyo 15:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Merged. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
empty category for deletion Hold and wave (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Túrelio. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Empty category, convoluted name. Seems like they were trying to make an encyclopedia article, maybe. ←fetchcomms 16:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --rimshottalk 23:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
|
This is a mix of theater marquees and marquees in the sense of large tents. While the word is the same, this clearly should be split into two categories. --Jmabel ! talk 15:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I was unaware of the meaning of "marquee" as a large tent. Is that a specific kind of large tent, or a general term? In any case, divide into "Marquee (theater)" (or perhaps "Theatrical marquee" would be better) and "Marquee (tent)"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Marquee" seems to be a word for pretty much every "large tent" imagineable. Hence, I don't know if a marquee (tent) category is really useful, but I am in no way an expert of tents. I would have no objection at all to a separate category "theater marquee", "theatrical marquee" or "marquee (theater)" (or "theatre" if you like). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- We could then create a "theatrical marquee" category, with a "see also" pointer in "marquee", but if the tent category doesn't explicitly say "tent" (as in "marquee (tent)") it'll still get misused. I may be wrong, but I believe "marquee" = "tent" may be almost entirely unknown in the U.S., so any of our American-based editors who upload an image of a theatrical marquee aren't going to know that "marquee" is meant to be for tents only. So... "marquee (tent)" for tents, "theatrical marquee" for theatres, with a category redirect from "marquee (theatre)" and "marquee (theater)" to "theatrical marquee". That should do the trick. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Marquee" seems to be a word for pretty much every "large tent" imagineable. Hence, I don't know if a marquee (tent) category is really useful, but I am in no way an expert of tents. I would have no objection at all to a separate category "theater marquee", "theatrical marquee" or "marquee (theater)" (or "theatre" if you like). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thxs Jmabel for your message.
- en:Marquee (sign): AE = sign placed over the entrance to a hotel or theatre and en:Marquee (disambiguation) = sign above a stage or movie theater or sign that displays messages in front of churches and schools ... See also the upper categories -> parts of theaters, building-related signs, architectural elements. Wouldn't Category:Marquees (sign) be better?
- The other marquees: BE = en:Pole marquees or pole tents are party tents or beer tents (-> Category:Beer tents). They should move to the Category:Tents. --Bohème (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Interesting - I had no idea that marquee = tent. I think disambiguation is absolutely required for the proposed tent category, because I think the use of the word for a tent must be uncommon in North America. Seeing as how marquees (as in the type used on the facades of cinemas) do not appear to be restricted to theatres (and a lot of historic theatres with marquees have been repurposed for other uses), I would create Category:Marquees (sign) (agree with Bohème's suggestion). Second best would be Category:Marquees (theater). I'm not keen on Category:Theatrical marquees, or any variation thereof, because it would be harder to find using hotcat (and thus requires redirects, which generally should be avoided where possible - they are a poor fix), and because the preferable category structure is to have the subject first, followed by the modifier (even Category:Marquees of theaters would be better, although the disambigiated version is much preferable). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Category:Beer tents is much too narrow a term for marquees in this sense. For example, the performance spaces at the Cambridge Folk Festival are certainly not "beer tents", but the are "marquees". - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- This discussion appears to have gone stale as no one has contributed in over a month. Given that no one disputed the need for a category split, and no one expressed opposition to Bohème's suggestion for the name of the sign-related category, I converted this page to a DAB and placed the contents in separate categories for tents and signs as discussed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Typo GrapedApe (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --rimshottalk 23:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
conversion so2 to so3 process Sureshkiran123 (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- What do you want to discuss about this category? --rimshottalk 23:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Not done. --rimshottalk 21:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Empty category, and the only media that would have fit here are all copyvios and either have been, or shortly should be, deleted. Courcelles (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thyroid-tsh-0.676=too high==normal4.20 75.181.86.97 15:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep No reason given. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Not done, no reason given. --rimshottalk 22:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
|
It seems to be a misspelling of "typography". I have created an alternative category with the correct spelling: "Art Nouveau typography" and moved the pages over to that category. This one is empty now. --Turn685 (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious misspelling. --rimshottalk 22:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Category to delete. Cjp24 (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, author request. --rimshottalk 13:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete, move contents appropriately inside Category:Odessa. But don't divide "amateur photos" and "pro photo" (all contributors are supposed to be volunteers, aren't they?). Some photos there are, indeed, quite poor, but there's no need to keep them in a special holding pen. ~ NVO (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It's most regrettable, but Lviv is in Ukraine and Ukraine has no Freedom of Panorama, so every single image in this category has to be deleted. DS (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, All pictures from 2007 were deleted because there are no FOP in Ukraine. The old pictures were not deleted. Béria Lima msg 12:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- List of files found via [1]
- File:BeerLion.JPG
- File:BeerLion1.JPG
- File:FloveingLion.JPG
- File:FloveingLion1.JPG
- File:KubokSSRLion.JPG
- File:Lev01.JPG
- File:Lion's bird.JPG
- File:Lion01.JPG
- File:Lion02.JPG
- File:Lion03.JPG
- File:Lion04.JPG
- File:Lion05.JPG
- File:Lion06.JPG
- File:Lion07.JPG
- File:Lion08.JPG
- File:Lion09.JPG
- File:Lion11.JPG
- File:Lion12.JPG
- File:Lion13.JPG
- File:Lion14.JPG
- File:Lion16.JPG
- File:Lion17.JPG
- File:LvivDefenderLion.JPG
- File:PhoenixLion.JPG
- File:TyhrovychLion.JPG
- File:Ukraine-Lviv-High Castle-9.jpg
Rename to "Mining in Dartmoor" for consistency with other "Mining in PLACE" categories. TheGrappler (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, name cleanup. --rimshottalk 13:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete empty and redundant cat TheGrappler (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 13:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Lead mines in Derbyshire for consistency and correct case. TheGrappler (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, name cleanup. --rimshottalk 13:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- This category is a duplicate of category George (Hotel) and should be removed Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Category:Hotel George in Lviv. I'd rather see Lviv in category name: George is quite a common name for a hotel especially in England. NVO (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- NVO is right! Keep the Category:Hotel George in Lviv! Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Redirected from Category:George (hotel), for now, which can be made into a disambiguation page when needed. --rimshottalk 13:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
improper name, even too generic for a disambiguation page Fransvannes (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 13:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a typo - an extra "of"; can somebody correct the category name please. Verne Equinox (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- A typo can be renamed via COM:DL, or for low-population categories - created with the correct name, contents moved and then tagged with Template:Badname, which I've done for this one. Benchill (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 13:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Empty category Vibhijain (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- KeepIt has one picture now.Vibhijain (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept, well-used now. --rimshottalk 13:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Typo in category name, wrong accent mark. Already exists the better alternative Post of Peru. ErickAgain 10:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, typo. --rimshottalk 13:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Empty Category Vibhijain (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please delete category for now. ZU-AOV is a North-American T6 Texan that I was going to upload as part of Category:2011 Grand Rand Airshow, but decided that image quality is not good enough; have uploaded photos of alternative aircraft. Category can be recreated at a later stage if a decent photo of the aircraft becomes available. --NJR_ZA (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Empty Category Vibhijain (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please delete category for now. ZU-AOP is a North-American T6 Texan that I was going to upload as part of Category:2011 Grand Rand Airshow, but decided that image quality is not good enough; have uploaded photos of alternative aircraft. Category can be recreated at a later stage if a decent photo of the aircraft becomes available. --NJR_ZA (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Renamed Desmortum (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
No images. 84.61.149.207 21:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Empty Category Vibhijain (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept, no longer empty. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems that this category is defunct, since the relevant templates have been deleted. Or should the approach be resurrected? Rd232 (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, no interwiki utility templates in there, as these have been deleted years ago. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Empty Category Vibhijain (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you in a hurry? I've created it several minutes ago. And now it is not empty. Mithril (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Denomimated. Mithril (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Empty Category Vibhijain (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Unecessary rush. Answered in a topic above. Mithril (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Denominated. Mithril (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Please rename to "RA-67222 (aircraft)" Simisa (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, renamed. --rimshottalk 20:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Please rename to Gregg Popovich as the first name is spelled wrong Lpdrew (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, this seems pretty non-controversial. Should redirect to Category:Gregg Popovich. Apologies for the typo. --Ytoyoda (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, wrong spelling. --rimshottalk 12:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Please delete - wrong name (sorry) S a g a C i t y (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- What's the correct name? --rimshottalk 14:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- St Chad's Church, Sproxton - following naming conventions S a g a C i t y (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing this up. --rimshottalk 20:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- St Chad's Church, Sproxton - following naming conventions S a g a C i t y (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Category:St Chad's Church, Sproxton. --rimshottalk 20:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Needs to be renamed to Rhythmic gymnasts from Wales as that is proper English Good twins (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not a language error, but inspired from here. Bill william comptonTalk 02:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- That just not English it's really obvious. Welsh is not a plural. Wales is. Inexcussable imo. Good twins (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Rhythmic gymnasts from Wales. I don't know what you mean by plural, but Welsh is an adjective referring to things and people that come from Wales. Wales is the name of a country that's part of the United Kingdom. Welsh gymnasts and Gymnasts from Wales mean the same thing, but the latter form is usually used in Category:Sportspeople from Wales. --rimshottalk 14:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Does Commons allow such categories? At least they need documentation as to their purpose. See also [2] 84user (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends how long "temp[orary]" is?
- Some tools do work better if one can use a Commons category to start out with, but obviously if it stays there for weeks, I'd rather not have it. -- Docu at 05:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's a hidden category, what's the problem? --Tony Wills (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is a pain when trying to follow of category and structural changes when people start to create all sorts of intermediate and unrelated category structures. One or two cases is manageable, but if several people start to create temporary category structures, it becomes impossible to follow up. --Foroa (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- It took me 2 minutes to create User Tony Wills temp categories that might be as efficient as the disruptive recategorisations. --Foroa (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Very kind of you, but I need a category that contains the categories I am using, not a page. I'm using it in conjunction with cat-a-lot, it saves an awful lot of retyping categories or navigating through a category tree. What actual problem is the category causing. I am happy to give it a different name, put in a different category branch etc. My requirement is simply to have a flat category structure containing the categories I am working with at any particular instant. The argument of what happens if several people create such structures is irrelevant to whether this one actually causes a problem. --Tony Wills (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- One of the major principles of Commons category evolution is that people watch category changes that they feel are important and take care of it. If people see category changes all the time without any good reason, they will no longer follow up and verify (I have about 50000 categories on my watch list). Moreover, even when hidden, a category structure needs some logic. It would be a shame to loose that self-control aspect because one of the tools need such temporary but continuously changing and fiddling around with categorisation. We better try to improve the tool, I noticed that some more features could substantially improve Cat-a-lot, such as selection of pictures by uploader combined with a date range. --Foroa (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, if I minimise the addition and removal of categories from this category will that help? I tried to make the category name something reasonably self evident (temporary category for a particular user), but am happy to make it less obtrusive. Yes, the cat-a-lot tool needs lots of improvements, but some feature requests have been waiting years, any volunteers? It would be nice to be able to use it in combination with the output of one of the cat-scan tools too. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- One of the major principles of Commons category evolution is that people watch category changes that they feel are important and take care of it. If people see category changes all the time without any good reason, they will no longer follow up and verify (I have about 50000 categories on my watch list). Moreover, even when hidden, a category structure needs some logic. It would be a shame to loose that self-control aspect because one of the tools need such temporary but continuously changing and fiddling around with categorisation. We better try to improve the tool, I noticed that some more features could substantially improve Cat-a-lot, such as selection of pictures by uploader combined with a date range. --Foroa (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Very kind of you, but I need a category that contains the categories I am using, not a page. I'm using it in conjunction with cat-a-lot, it saves an awful lot of retyping categories or navigating through a category tree. What actual problem is the category causing. I am happy to give it a different name, put in a different category branch etc. My requirement is simply to have a flat category structure containing the categories I am working with at any particular instant. The argument of what happens if several people create such structures is irrelevant to whether this one actually causes a problem. --Tony Wills (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I do think that work categories used by file importers to manage their imported files should be named using a standard prefix "User:" (this does not require then the "temp" part in their name. This can be useful until the importer completes the description pages and categories for the files just imported. When editing these separate description pages, the user category should not survive at all (the history pages of description pages is enough to know who imported the files and who edited the description pages and/or added categories).
- However, such user category should never list any category of the main system space : these main categories MUST not be listed in a user category, this is just pollution which becomes visible in the main space, and that perturbates the categorizing tools. Instead, the user needs to create a page in its own user space, where it can list the categories he is working on, using standard links. verdy_p (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- You don't understand the category's purpose, a list of categories is of no use to the cat-a-lot tool. I also disagree that "main categories MUST not be listed in a user category", this was a hidden category, like any other maintenance category it is not visible for normal usage of Commons. I could have made it a hidden maintenance category, instead of making it clear it was just a temporary user specific category, and it wouldn't have created as much consternation. I sometimes despair that some times it is felt that neat and tidy is more important than actually letting users get on with maintaining the database of images.
- Anyway, normal service will now resume, I no longer need the category :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Tony, you have to appreciate that for most people working on categories, hidden cats are just another class of categories that need be maintained and followed. I would strongly suggest to frequent commonists to keep hidden category display always on (and make it the default). The way you use cat-a-lot might provide interesting clues for its improvement. Sorry for the trouble. --Foroa (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's a hidden category, what's the problem? --Tony Wills (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Closed, the category is long gone. --rimshottalk 14:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Uploader notes category is for 'deprecated' images no-longer in use which may be deleted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I don't understand what is the reason for deletion. Seems to be a valid user-specific category for me. Trycatch (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept, user-specific category, no good reason for deletion. --rimshottalk 23:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
empty unnecessary cat with empty unnecessary subcat Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, so much to work. I now filled the category with long existing (first) files at Commons, now classified as Scouting in Hanover. Many thanks, good work, greetings - --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept, not empty anymore. --rimshottalk 23:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
empty cat which has nothing to do with subcat Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, still empty. --rimshottalk 23:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be plural: "Wars", not "War"?
BTW, the category is so thinly filled, could it be that there's other categories of the same? A lot of relevant monuments, like Category:Völkerschlachtdenkmal, aren't in any "Napoleonic" categories at all. NVO (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, should be plural. There seem to be around 15 related memorial and monument categories. They need to find a home ... --Foroa (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, plural. --Bazi (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Memorials of the Napoleonic Wars. --rimshottalk 21:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Should this be merged with Category:Stereo images? It is difficult to see a distinction between the two. TheGrappler (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC) [Particularly since the suggested merge target has explanatory text "This is for Stereoscopic (3D) images"! TheGrappler (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)]
- Merge to Category:Stereo images, which is older, and keep as a redirect. --rimshottalk 21:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Stereo images. --rimshottalk 23:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe the main category and the redirect should be switched. Currently Category:Halle Library is used, while Category:Bruce T. Halle Library is a soft redirect. "Bruce T. Halle Library" is the official name of the library, as well as the title of the English Wikipedia article, and I believe it should be the category used, with the short name "Halle Library" as a redirect. --cmadler (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, sounds reasonable. --rimshottalk 21:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Since I proposed this more than a year ago and no one's objected, I've implemented my above proposal. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Closed, implemented as proposed. --rimshottalk 18:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Must be renamed to Category:Ernst Krenkel on stamps KVK2005 (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep for simplicity. Technically, contents fit Category:Ernst Krenkel on stamps which should then be a daughter of Category:Ernst Krenkel, but because commons cannot host photographic images of E.K., not even a photo of his grave, there will be nothing else. NVO (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any advantage of that move at the moment unless there is at least one extra non-stamp file in this category and we would have to create the stamp subcategory. By the way, I don't understand why his grave could not be pictured on Commons. We have plenty of them here: Category:Graves.
Keep. --Michael Romanov (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I just added File:Krenkel and Saltykov.jpg to the category. KVK2005 (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- All right. Now, when there are two non-stamp images in the parent category, we have all grounds to create a subcategory for stamps. Can you do that, please? --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- As there are hardly any images available and it's unlikely that we get many more stamps, I think they could remain in Category:Ernst Krenkel. This avoids listing the crop from the stamp twice. -- Docu at 11:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- All right. Now, when there are two non-stamp images in the parent category, we have all grounds to create a subcategory for stamps. Can you do that, please? --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I just added File:Krenkel and Saltykov.jpg to the category. KVK2005 (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. The category is about the man, not only about stamps. --Cqdx (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Should be renamed as the park´s name is not High Bridge Park but Highbridge Park. Also see here: http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/highbridgepark Pilettes (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I vote for Category:Highbridge Park (New York City). The Park is in Manhattan, but since the bridge leads to the Bronx, I think both boroughs shoul be covered. ----DanTD (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fine with me. I was going by 19th-century materials that called it "High Bridge Park". - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Make it a redirect, then. --rimshottalk 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is the park at the east end of the bridge, between University and Undercliff Avenues, part of Highbridge Park or is it distinct? Jim.henderson (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- You mean the park on the Bronx side? I think you mean either University Woods or Roberto Clemente State Park. But this has nothing to do with the category changes, right?
- Is the park at the east end of the bridge, between University and Undercliff Avenues, part of Highbridge Park or is it distinct? Jim.henderson (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Make it a redirect, then. --rimshottalk 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
So the result is to rename the category? Who can do this? --Pilettes (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, we can rename it as a Manhattan park, as we have no indication that the Bronx end park is the same park. Drat; I should have sought and snapped any park signs when I was there photographing the bridge in December. No, Clemente and University Woods are both a mile (1.5 km) north of the High Bridge. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh. My mind must be dimming. the official Parks Dept page gives this park in The Bronx the same name, "Highbridge Park" but does not say it is the same park as the Manhattan one. So, yes, if we ever get many pictures for the Bronx end of the bridge including the stone stairs to Undercliff Avenue, we'll want another Category:Highbridge Park, Bronx. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Highbridge Park, Manhattan, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 22:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Contains only FOP violations. 84.61.178.142 15:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Welcome back! Could there be a fresh start better than harassing some forgotten desert tribes? By the way, you now have a personal article on wikireality! NVO (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept, not empty. Feel free to nominate contained files for deletion. --rimshottalk 20:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
See en:Ivan Kupala Day. I suggest merger of category:Kupala Night and category:Ivan Kupala Day. Merge to which of the two? I have no opinion (actual content suggests night, en-wiki article is named day), but both categories describe the same historical tradition. NVO (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep category:Kupala Night. In my opinion Kupala Night is a better and more general name; see en:Kupala Night (the article was renamed now). Not in all countries where the holiday is celebrated it is connected with the name of St. Ivan or John... Electron ツ ➧☎ 08:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Turned into a category redirect to Ivan Kupala Day. Ivan Kupala Day has a category tree, while Kupala Night does not. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
For overcategorization. There are many subcategories of Category:Flags with stars, this in particular is dispensable. All flags will star the at least one color and some more of them. If we categorized each flag to each criterion may have files with many categories.
Another set of categories that don't consider it necessary are Category:Flags with bordered stars, Category:Flags with tilted stars and Category:Flags with stars by position for the same reasons.
I regret not speaking English, I wrote this with an automatic translator. Are able to forgive if not understood.
--Metrónomo (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Useful cat. Comment I regret you have to quote a valid reason, see Commons:Deletion policy. @ "If we categorized each flag to each criterion may have files with many categories.": there's no limit for sub-cats as far as I know. 10 m+ files need a well organized system to browse (finding files with numerous possiblities). --Mattes (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment In fact the deletion policy is silent with respect to this query is rather sketchy on the deletion of categories. It is true that there is no limit to the number of categories that an image can be, especially if they are useful. But I appeal to common sense, there are many categories of content that can have a flag, too many combinations of content and how it can be. The combinations are such that there are categories for one flag and more categories than files. I started this consulting flags have stars because there are many views on how it can be that star that is a category for color, one for the location, size, border, quantity, slope, shape, and all possible combinations that arise. All these categories for a single object of the flag, if it has other objects are categories for them too. It's overcategorization unnecessary. Metrónomo (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Category:Hokkaido prefecture and its subcategories that bear the "prefecture" suffix
[edit]- Category:Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Islands of Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Police stations in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Shrines in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Bridges in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Transport in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Festivals of Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Sightseeing spots of Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Fire stations in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Post offices in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Rest areas in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:History of Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Railway lines in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Geography of Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Former railway lines in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Hospitals in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Military facilities in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Buildings in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Parks in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Former trains in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Trains in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Important Cultural Property of Japan in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Culture of Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Firefighting in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Fire engines of Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Hotels in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Lighthouses in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Hot springs of Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Houses in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Sculptures in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Statues in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Libraries in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Road bridges in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Road tunnels in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Graves in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Tourism in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Education in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Churches in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Sports in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Sports venues in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Athletics venues in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Baseball venues in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:National government buildings in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Restaurants in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Steles of Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Concert halls in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Musical venues in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Courthouses in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Videos from Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Theaters in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Governors of Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Stations in Hokkaido prefecture photographed before 1956
- Category:Gardens in Hokkaido prefecture
- Category:Ramen of Hokkaido prefecture
IMHO the category for Hokkaido (and its subcategories) should be named WITHOUT "prefecture". Reasons:
- "Hokkaido prefecture" is a redundant term since do is understood as "prefecture" in Japanese. (cf. en:Prefectures of Japan#Hokkaidō)
- The government of Hokkaido officially calls itself without the "prefecture" suffix. [3]
- The corresponding article in English Wikipedia is Hokkaido, whilst Hokkaido Prefecture is a redirect page. This also applies to the most of other language versions. Yasu (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Support Natural idea. --Vantey (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)- Support --hyolee2/H.L.LEE (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose strongly for several reasons:
- There is Category:Hokkaido (dog) so a disambiguation term does not harm.
- All prefectures in Japan have the prefecture extension, so I see no specific reason to deviate from that de facto standard and make one exception without a valid reason
- Most (should be all) subcats are using the terms "Hokkaido prefecture", so the move is basically a mass rename request that breaks the naming system in Japan.
- Japan has one of the best and most systematic category naming system in the Commons world that almost never creates problems, so lets keep it like that. --Foroa (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Without the prefecture extension of the Hokkaido, Hokkaido is due to special circumstances. "Hokkaido" is an idiom meaning in itself as a region, like other prefectures, "the existing geographical names + prefecture" in the compound do not like. "no specific reason" that is not only for your studying.
- For disambiguation with Hokkaido (dog), on the category-header do I induction. It's that. I would not think a fatal confusion. Begin with "Hokkaido (dog)" is named after the name of Hokkaido. --Vantey (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Foroa, let me explain some more about this.
- First, the 47 subnational-level divisions in Japan might be collectively called "prefectures" in English, but in detailed context they are classified as to, do, fu or ken (都, 道, 府 and 県 in Japanese, respectively) and these four are slightly different to each others in some ways. For historical reasons, Hokkaido remains the only do in the 47 divisions to date (again, see en:Prefectures of Japan). It is common for the Japanese people to say, e.g. "Akita" as the shortened term for Akitaken, however "Hokkai" for Hokkaido is hardly, almost never, used in Japan.
- Second, Hokkaido is also the name of an island and a greater region of Japan at the same time (see en:List of regions of Japan), and thus differentiates itself from the other prefectures.
- As for the dog breed, its name is apparently derived from the land of Hokkaido (as Vantey pointed out above), so in this case an equal disambiguation won't be necessary. If we do need disambiguation then I would propose "Hokkaido (prefecture)" or "Hokkaido (land)" whatsoever, but not "Hokkaido prefecture" for the reason I mentioned earlier.
- Last but not the least, it is not always a good idea to stick to the so-called naming system: category names should be optimised for readers over editors. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose "Second, Hokkaido is also the name of an island and a greater region of Japan at the same time" is the perfect reason to maintain disambiguation, even more so than the dog! TheGrappler (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If it matches the name of an administrative area and the island, categories be unified into one, it is natural. Why do you think that you need to disambiguation between the two? If as you say, also Category:Tasmania should separate to region category and island category, also Category:Prince Edward Island, Category:Isle of Man, Category:Grenada and more. --Vantey (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment That is a fair point. It's worth pointing out that these examples also produce difficulties, particularly for islands which largely correspond to subdivisions with the same name: for instance, one often finds inconsistency, with some categories ending "in Foo" (the norm when thinking about the toponym as an administrative area) and others "on Foo" (if it is thought about as an island), without rhyme or reason for which gets used! Obviously the proposed change is not completely unworkable, because analogous examples exist (as you note). But there are some advantages to maintaining the prefecture/island distinction, and I think those advantages accrue to readers as much as editors. TheGrappler (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Currently, this category is actually used for the island/region as well and it seems to be working fine. As a native Japanese (although not from Hokkaido), I don't think we need that precise distinction between the prefecture/island/region, and the Wikipedia article isn't that precise either. So I see no serious issues when subcategories ending with "in Hokkaido" and that with "on Hokkaido" are all in one place. But anyway, the suffix "prefecture" is redundant (just as I wrote before) and can be misleading, and therefore should be dropped, regardless of how the category is treated. Yasu (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment奴らが詭弁ばかり吐いていますが、無視して早いうちに移動させましょう。--hyolee2/H.L.LEE (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
(Reset indent) I am inclined to withdraw my opposition, but:
- one has to make sure that their will be no need to distinguish the prefecture from the Isle (a geographical item has sometimes other structures than an administrative one).
- one has to define clearly if Hokkaido is in the first place a prefecture or an Isle. As one can see in Category:Isle of Wight, they need special category naming, for example their are no houses, forests, streets, ... in an Isle but on the Isle (annoying isn't). In the past, that created much problems such as in Category:Gotland where I am not sure they are all solved or will come back one day. --Foroa (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I really appreciate your decision. Hope this explanation helps:
- "Hokkaido Region" is the region that consists only of the prefecture of Hokkaido, but strictly speaking, Hokkaido as the prefecture includes some smaller islands nearby, and the Kuril Islands (claimed by Japan but currently under the administration of Russia) as well, so we may not be able to say the prefecture and the island are identical. However, given the share of the main island (in population, area, economic scale, ...) within the prefecture, this difference can practically be ignored. Let me name another example: Hawaii is a state made up of various islands (that include the Hawaii Island, of course). Now let's take a look into Category:Hawaii; it is used for the state and for the islands at the same time.
- This is just my opinion, but I think the prefecture should come first if the prefecture and the island are not identical and the category is to handle the smaller islands as well as the main island. Yasu (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Now, let me summarise the discussion so far into Japanese for the potential participants who don't speak English:
ここまでの議論をかいつまんで日本語でまとめます。提案の趣旨についてはこちらに書いています。
- （賛成）自然な考えである。（Vanteyさん）
- （賛成）（Hyolee2さん）
- （強く反対）北海道犬のカテゴリ「Hokkaido (dog)」が存在するので曖昧さ回避が必要。／他の都道府県はすべて「prefecture」が付いており、北海道だけ例外扱いする理由はない。／サブカテゴリもほとんど「prefecture」が付いており、これを外すことはカテゴリ命名システムを崩すことになる。／日本に関してはコモンズでは最良かつ最も体系化されたカテゴリ命名方法があり、それでまず問題はないのだから、このままにしておこうではないか。（Foroaさん）
- （コメント）北海道は他の都府県と違い地域の名称でもあり、他の都府県とは事情が違う。／北海道犬のカテゴリは冒頭部で説明を加えればよい。そもそもこの犬は地名の北海道から名付けられたものではないか。（Vanteyさん）
- （コメント）日本の都道府県は英語では「prefectures」と総称されるが、都・道・府・県の間にはそれぞれ微妙に違いがある。北海道は日本唯一の「道」である。たとえば秋田県を「秋田」と略すことはあっても、北海道を「北海」と呼ぶことはない。／北海道とは都道府県の一つであると同時に島および地域の名称でもあり、他の都府県とは違う。／犬については地名から名付けられたのだから平等な曖昧さ回避は必要ない。もし区別が必要なら「Hokkaido (prefecture)」や「Hokkaido (land)」などを推すが、前述の通り「Hokkaido prefecture」ではだめだ。／命名システムとやらにこだわることが必ずしも良いとはいえない。カテゴリ名は編集者よりも読者の利便性を優先すべきだからである。（Yasu）
- （コメント）北海道は他の都府県と違い地域の名称でもあり、他の都府県とは事情が違う。／北海道犬のカテゴリは冒頭部で説明を加えればよい。そもそもこの犬は地名の北海道から名付けられたものではないか。（Vanteyさん）
- （反対）「都道府県の一つであると同時に島および地域の名称でもある」ということ自体が曖昧さ回避が必要な理由たり得る。（TheGrapplerさん）
- （コメント）都道府県と島を一つのカテゴリにしてもいいではないか。他にも Category:Tasmania, Category:Prince Edward Island, Category:Isle of Man や Category:Grenada など同様の例が多数ある。（Vanteyさん）
- （コメント）行政区画と島の名前が同じ場合、両者を同じ場所で扱うことには問題がある。「行政区画にあるもの」を扱っていると見なされ得る「Category:○○ in どこどこ」という形式のサブカテゴリや、「島にあるもの」を扱うと思われる「Category:○○ on どこどこ」サブカテゴリが混在したり、区別されることなく使われてしまったりする。都道府県と島は区別するほうが読者のためにもなる。（TheGrapplerさん）
- （コメント）今のところこのカテゴリは都道府県だけでなく現に島・地域のカテゴリとしても使われており、十分用をなしている。このカテゴリにそこまで厳密な区分が必要とは思われないし、ウィキペディアの記事もやはり厳密な区別をしていない。なので「○○ in Hokkaido」と「○○ on Hokkaido」のサブカテゴリが一箇所に集まっていたところで特別問題とは考えていない。しかし、このカテゴリをどう扱うにせよ、カテゴリ名の「prefecture」は余計であり誤解を招くので、いずれにしても除去すべきだ。（Yasu）
- （コメント）行政区画と島の名前が同じ場合、両者を同じ場所で扱うことには問題がある。「行政区画にあるもの」を扱っていると見なされ得る「Category:○○ in どこどこ」という形式のサブカテゴリや、「島にあるもの」を扱うと思われる「Category:○○ on どこどこ」サブカテゴリが混在したり、区別されることなく使われてしまったりする。都道府県と島は区別するほうが読者のためにもなる。（TheGrapplerさん）
- （コメント）都道府県と島を一つのカテゴリにしてもいいではないか。他にも Category:Tasmania, Category:Prince Edward Island, Category:Isle of Man や Category:Grenada など同様の例が多数ある。（Vanteyさん）
- 反対票を取り下げてもよいが、本当に都道府県と島を区別しなくてもいいのかどうか、はっきりさせる必要がある（地理上の区分と行政区分とでは時として組織が異なる）／北海道とは第一義として都道府県なのか島なのか明確に定義する必要がある。例を挙げると Category:Isle of Wight では特別なサブカテゴリ命名方法（○○ in an Isle ではなく、○○ on the Isle）を用いているし、過去には Category:Gotland で多くの問題が起こり、もう解決したのかあるいは再発するのかも分からない状況だ。（Foroaさん）
- 北海道地方は北海道のみで構成される地方であるが、厳密に言えば都道府県としての北海道には他の小さな島々や北方領土も含まれるので、道と島は完全に同一とは言えないかもしれない。しかし道内における本島の占める割合（面積・人口・経済規模などあらゆる点において）を考えると、実質的にこの違いは無視できるものと思う。参考までに、アメリカのハワイ州はハワイ島など数々の島からなっており、コモンズの Category:Hawaii は州についてのカテゴリであると同時に島々のカテゴリでもある。／個人的意見だが、もし道と島が同一でなく、またこのカテゴリが本島に加えて他の島々も含むとするなら、第一義は道とすることででよいであろう。（Yasu）
取りあえずまとめは以上です。引き続きご意見をお待ちしております。Yasu (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 追加 Yasu (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- A pity you did not translate: "Japan has one of the best and most systematic category naming system in the Commons world that almost never creates problems, so lets keep it like that. " --Foroa (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well it's merely a "summary" and it was no intention to omit that line. But as you (may) wish, I added the translation. Yasu (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support It is clearly wrong.
- Sorry, I know a little English.
- "都道府県" is a concatenation of end of each word. But, "北海道" is one word, "道" does not mean the Prefecture. Because, "北海道" did not change to "北海道県" or "北海道府" in old. "道" means one of the "五畿八道".
- Gokihachidō (not en wikipedia)-ja:五畿八道, en:Gokishichidō-ja:五畿七道, en:Provinces of Japan-ja:令制国
- Why is the "Hokkaido-inu" called "Hokkaido"? The Japanese doesn't say that everyone is Hokkaido. "北海道犬" is one word !
- Why do divide the category? I think, there is not a file put in "Island". The person who is looking for the photograph on the island doesn't want Hokkaido. Hopes for "Rishiri Island and others in Hokkaido". To begin with, Japan are all islands.
- "都道府県"は、それぞれの語尾を繋げた単語です。しかし、"北海道"は一つの単語であり、"道"はPrefectureを意味していません。なぜなら昔、"北海道"は"北海道県"または"北海道府"に変更しなかったためです。"道"は、"五畿八道"の一つのことです。
- なぜ北海道犬は、北海道と呼ばれるのでしょうか。日本人は誰も北海道と言うことはありません。"北海道犬"は一つの単語です。
- なぜ、カテゴリーを分けるのか。私が思うに、"島"に置くファイルは無いでしょう。島の写真を探している人は北海道を望んでいなく、北海道の利尻島などを望んでいる。そもそも、日本は全てが島。
- 追記-英文誤記あれば訂正していただけますか。--Aimaimyi (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support 現在のCategory:Hokkaido prefectureはその名の通り行政区画のカテゴリであるはずです。島のカテゴリとして使われているという指摘はCategory:Islands of JapanとCategory:Japanese Archipelagoのサブカテゴリとなっていることを指すのだと思いますが、Category:Hokkaido prefectureの下位にCategory:Rishirifuji, Hokkaidoのような本島に属さないカテゴリが含まれる以上、これは行政区画のカテゴリが便宜的に島のカテゴリに流用されていると見るべきでしょう。この関係は改名後も維持する必要がありますが、カテゴリ名からprefectureを削ると本末が曖昧になってしまうため、改名する全てのカテゴリの定義文にprefectureのカテゴリである旨を明記すべきです。
- 行政区画と島とがおおよそ重なる場合に島のカテゴリを設けるべきかどうかについては、Category:Cuba、Category:Gotland、Category:Grenada、Category:Iceland、Category:Isle of Man、Category:Isle of Wight、Category:Prince Edward Island、Category:Sardinia、Category:Sicily、Category:Sri Lanka、Category:Tasmaniaなどの他の事例と併せて、改めて検討してもよいのではないでしょうか。--庚寅五月 (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- (English translation) As its name suggests, Category:Hokkaido prefecture must be the category for the administrative division. The opinion that the category is also used for the island, is supposedly based on the fact that the category is contained by Category:Islands of Japan and Category:Japanese Archipelago, but on the other hand it contains some subcats which don't belong to the main island (e.g. Category:Rishirifuji, Hokkaido). This implies that the category for the administrative division is expediently used for the category for the island. This manner should be maintained even after the category move, however, removing prefecture from the names of the subcats makes it somewhat confusing, so it's better to add the description to all the subcats, saying that these subcats are for the prefecture.
- Whether the category for the island should be created, we could discuss with other examples like Category:Cuba, Category:Gotland, Category:Grenada, Category:Iceland, Category:Isle of Man, Category:Isle of Wight, Category:Prince Edward Island, Category:Sardinia, Category:Sicily, Category:Sri Lanka, Category:Tasmania and more. Yasu (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support: It is redundant to separate the island and the prefecture of Hokkaido here on Commons. We are categorizing media files, not writing Wikipedia articles precisely distinguishing the two. The term Hokkaido can mean both, while Hokkaido prefecture, by definition, means only the prefecture. Since we are not going to create Category:Hokkaido island, the unified name must be just Hokkaido. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose If Category:Mie prefecture renames Category:Mie, it is too short for abbr... Additonally Category:Saga prefecture cannot rename Category:Saga (in Tibet). --Tondenh (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment We are discussing categories related to Hokkaido only; other fu and ken categories should remain as they are. Yasu (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment should remain other 'fu' and 'capital' ? Category:Tokyo is no suffix, but Category:Osaka prefecture and Category:Kyoto prefecture is with suffix. "Hokkaido prefecture" seems to be not funny.--Tondenh (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- The term "Hokkaido Prefecture" sounds pretty strange for me (I've already said why). FYI, there are some categories related to Tokyo that have "prefecture" suffix (e.g. Category:Hot springs of Tokyo prefecture), and we'd better talk about that some other time. Yasu (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Compare Category:Prefectures of Japan, Category:Islands of Japan, Category:Regions of Japan. In only one of these umbrella categories here, Category:Hokkaido prefecture is consistent with its cohort of very similar prefectural categories. In two categories, "Hokkaido Prefecture" stands out as an inconsistent element. IMO, there should be two corollary categories which are consistent with others in related group cohorts, i.e., in the category of islands of japan, the Category:Hokkaido island is reasonable, helpful and necessary. Also: in the category of regions of Japan, the Category:Hokkaido region is helpful and necessary. Do you begin to see the point?
This is one of those instances in which the "answer" is only discerned from outside the box.
Compare Category:Kyushu and Category:Shikoku which explicitly refer to island and region; and prefectures are sub-categories.
Please step back and reconsider in light of an historical perspective. Please bear in mind: (a) that Hokkaidō Island and Hokkaidō Region are in use after 1869; and (b) Hokkaidō Prefecture does not come into existence until after 1947 --Horeki (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I was initially unsure what to do here, so I floated it to a handful of other admins over IRC (natuur12, Steinsplitter, Mattbuck, odder), and we agreed that it should be closed as no consensus. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I have been asked to provide additional reasoning behind my close, by a pair of users that feel that it should have been closed in favor of the move. The primary arguments for a move are that it is linguistically not as accurate to use "prefecture", as it is already present (the do in Hokkaido), and that it is officially known as Hokkaido and not Hokkaido prefecture (which is reflected on Wikipedia). The primary arguments in opposition to a rename are that there are other entities known as Hokkaido (including a dog), meaning that "prefecture" adds disambiguation, and that in categories like Category:Prefectures of Japan it follows the pattern that all of the other entries follow. Both of these are strong sets of arguments, and are well argued. While those in favor of moving came out in higher numbers, and made an effort to counter those in opposition to the move, I didn't see a clear consensus. Feel free to renominate these if you disagree (don't reopen this, start a new one so that the datestamps are right). Sven Manguard Wha? 01:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:China. Support merge and subsequent deletion of this cat. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 11:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Redundant to Category:Taiwan you mean ? What a waste of energy. --Foroa (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be redundant, but its content is quite a mess. This category should be related to ROC since its creation in mainland China, and media related to ROC after 1949 should be moved to category Taiwan - except files related to ROC claims of mainland China and other parts out of Taiwan.--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I meant Taiwan. My apologies for again conflating the two. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
No consensus for a merge or deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
No, no Rosa Klebb there. Sorry. Is it really necessary - the only "appropriate" content is a wiki-conference outline. ?? better delete. ~ NVO (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- No problem to keep it but with proper disambiguation: en:From Russia with Love. --Foroa (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Categories made in jest are out of the project's scope. Deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It is the only year-by-year featured picture category. Such categories do not help in sorting media meaningfully. 124.168.218.92 12:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I can't remember why this was created, possibly because the early FP discussions weren't archived in the same way they were later and it was more difficult to find FPs from a particular year. Contrary to the assertion by 124.168.218.92, I would suggest creating a category for each year for finding FPs for a particular year. If "Such categories do not help in sorting media meaningfully" I suggest we also delete all the year categories that hold images defined by the the rather vague description "related to the year xxxx" Category:1900, Category:1901, ... Category:2009,Category:2010, Category:2011 etc. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant to Commons:Featured pictures/chronological. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per The Evil IP address. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Advertisement, most probably against the notability guildlines Vibhijain (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is not an advertisement at all. This company is a producer of Italia Guitars, a well known retro-style guitar brand. Don't you know "Italia Guitars" ? --Shoulder-synth (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Some upmerging and downmerging to get it all into one category, because we don't need four levels of empty categories that all feed to the one place where the images actually are. Is a category acceptable? Yes. Was the category tree set up as an inappropriate external link farm? Also yes. That has been fixed, however. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)