Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2016/12
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 December 2016
כפילות - כבר קיימת קטגוריה כזו. יצרתי בטעות דוג'רית (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- I put a {{Bad name}} template on it. An admin will probably delete it soon, unless they decide to redirect it. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
this is unofficial khowar alphabet and must be delete Mission Kashmir III (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Vandalism. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
this category must be delete Mission Kashmir III (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree it should be deleted. Kalbbes (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Mission Kashmir III and Kalbbes: Please say why you think this category should be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- I created the category. It looks inappropriate to me now and I can't imagine why I created it. I've not seen other images that would go into it. Kalbbes (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Vandalism. If anyone really believe that this category should be deleted, please provide a valid reason. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
Deleted by Srittau 3 December 2016. --Achim (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- For reference: this short dicsussion. Deleted as empty cat. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
both files in this category were misdated, I moved them to 2009. MB298 (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Awesome thanks. Feel free to delete the empty category for 2000. We can always recreate it if we need too. Reguyla (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleting as empty. Can be recreated in the future if necessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Еmpty. Delete needed Nickel nitride (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleting - nomination by creator, for category that has been moved to Category:2S19M1. In the future, Nickel nitride, you can use {{badname|2S19M1}} when you (uncontroversially) move a category and want to delete the original. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
No meaning category. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 22:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted as empty by Mys_721tx. While this was a pretty obvious case, please try to avoid deleting categories under discussion, unless you're going to close the discussion. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Please change the name of the category to William Forbes Adams. When I created it I incorrectly named it "Williams Forbes Adams". His first name is William. Drbones1950 (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Done. Category and contents moved to new name. Old category tagged with {{Bad name}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
empty category Outlookxp (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Nominated by creator, who also created Category:Chaojhou Police station. Deleting. @Outlookxp: If you make this kind of typo again, just add {{badname|<correct name>}} to the incorrectly named category. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Is this not a duplicate of Category:Battle of Antrea? Robby (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, yes, it is. The author nominated the category for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in France. French law doesn't permit FoP and thus, this images can't be tagged under CC licence as they can't be used for commercial purposes.
That's all I'm programmed to do! 🍺💲🚬 08:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, there's nothing wrong with the category. You can nominate the files for deletion, but so long as the files exist, so should the category. Second, you may wish to investigate whether the Eiffel Tower, built in 1880, is still subject to copyright. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Not done: Out of process scope: Feel free to request deletion of the content via COM:DR. --Achim (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. FoP is reserved only for websites of scientific purpose, which are to be non-commercial. CC licence allows commercial use of the media which is against the FoP laws.
That's all I'm programmed to do! 🍺💲🚬 08:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, your issue is with the files in question, not the category. Please nominate the files for deletion. So long as the files exist, the category should exist. Second, you may wish to consider whether the Tower of Pisa, built in the 14th century, is still subject to copyright. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep The Leaning Tower is centuries old. No claim for copyrights is possible. José Luiz disc 14:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Not done: Out of process scope: Feel free to request deletion of the content via COM:DR. --Achim (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Remove no longer used maintenance category Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, you're welcome. --Achim (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
delete - bad name Schofför (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Schofför, ist Töbelibach auf den Karten von GM und OSM, die über die Geolinks der Fotos in Category:Eichenbach (Alter Rhein) zu finden sind, eine fehlerhafte Angabe? --Achim (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Genau wegen diesen Quellen habe ich zuerst die Kategorie unter dem Namen «Töbelibach» angelegt. Als ich dann den Bachverlauf für die Beschreibung in der Kategorie bei swisstopo suchte, fand ich den Namen Eichenbach. Auf GM findet man diese Bezeichnung zwischen den Bus-Haltestellen Walzenhausen-Sonnenberg und Zelg (Wolfhalden), Hub bei der Verbindungsstrasse mit dem Namen «Högle». Auf ortsnamen.ch steht, dass der «Schlissibach» der Name für „Ein Stück des Eichenbachs bis zur Schlissi (Schleisse), die auf der Walzenhauser Seite liegt. Varianten: Eichenbach, Schutzbach, Töbelibach (nur in Rheineck SG)“ sei. Anders formuliert; der unterste Teil des Eichenbachs hat in Rheineck den Namen «Töbelibach». Ähnlich schreibt das HLS unter St. Margrethen: „... dessen Westgrenze 890 der Eichenbach (Töbelibach) nahe Rheineck bezeichnet wurde.“ Der Eichenbach hat also auf mehreren Abschnitten auch noch andere Namen. Von daher könnte man die Weiterleitung bei der Kategorie Töbelibach stehen lassen. Gruss --Schofför (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, und Dank an den Schofför. --Achim (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Empty, should be deleted. No matching files found by search. Hiddenhauser (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, no links nor references on other projects found. --Achim (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Should be deleted. Redundant because of Category:Frank Thayer Merrill --Hiddenhauser (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, should have checked before creating it. Will the files I created be automatically moved to the (correct) page, or should I move it there myself? (Edit: I can't see any files there, so can I directly add the files (Category:Lonely O'Malley) there?) Thanks —Akme (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Redirected Category:Frank T. Merrill to Category:Frank Thayer Merrill as it is no misspelling. --Achim (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you –Akme (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Redirected Category:Frank T. Merrill to Category:Frank Thayer Merrill as it is no misspelling. --Achim (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Closing: this category was redirected to the duplicate one. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
delete/ created with a mistake Fleur-de-farine (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've put the {{Bad name}} template on it. An administrator will see it and take care of it. @Fleur-de-farine: For future reference, you could have put that template on the category yourself instead of opening a cfd here. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Typo. --Achim (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Only images in category are pictures of restaurant Comet Ping Pong. To place these images of this restaurant in this category as opposed to perhaps pictures of police arresting the gunman who shot up the restaurant, is irrelevant. It is also defamatory towards living people. We already have the category Category:Comet Ping Pong, that is enough we don't need the exact same 2 images in 2 categories. It is redundant. Sagecandor (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- The dearth of images is most likely related to the fact that the category was created about an hour ago. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The category is now several hours old and now contains Category:Comet Ping Pong and two images of a place called Politics and Prose. Since the Pizzagate theory was apparently debunked (according to the notes in the category), and no images in this category show anything specific to the theory, the category isn't needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Not a useful category. FallingGravity (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Withdraw nomination. Changed to "Keep". Now we have several related files and pictures and the category is useful. These include: File:US v Welch Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint.pdf and File:Comet Ping Pong Pizzagate 2016 03.jpg and File:Comet Ping Pong Pizzagate 2016 05.jpg, helpfully added by Farragutful, and File:Comet Ping Pong - community messages.jpg by AgnosticPreachersKid. Sagecandor (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Kept: Request withdrawn, cat seems to be useful now. --Achim (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Used once by creator to (incorrectly) file their uploads. Now empty after moving images to correct category. Takeaway (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Empty, deleted. --Achim (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
créée par erreur Pippobuono (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
sorry, the categories by province are no more relevant in Madagascar since 2007 Pippobuono (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- I tagged it with {{Empty page}}, so an admin will see it and delete. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
sorry categories by province are no more relevant in Madagascar since 2007 Pippobuono (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
sorry categories by provinces are no more relevant in Madagascar since 2007 Pippobuono (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- I tagged it with {{Speedy}}, so an admin will see it and delete. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be an orphan category created for one photo only. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category:Photographic studios. Or rather, delete and redirect Category:Photography studios to Category:Photographic studios. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Moved the single image to Category:Photographic studios and deleted the cat as is had promotional content (broken web link). --Achim (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Empty category. All items were moved to the category with the right name (the current one is misspelled). Ldorfman (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:Harry Oppenheimer Diamond Museum. -- Geagea (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
[[Empty category. All items were moved to [[Category:Harry Oppenheimer Diamond Museum Ldorfman (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:Harry Oppenheimer Diamond Museum. -- Geagea (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
This category name implies that the entries will be grouped by a "Docomomo Ibérico number". However, no such number is mentioned in the names of either the subcategories or the files in this category. The number is mentioned in the description. "Docomomo Ibérico" seems to be a heritage register, similar to a register of listed buildings. I think the category should be renamed, maybe to something like "Buildings with Docomomo Ibérico numbers". Doing that would require changing Template:Docomomoiberico, which assigns this category. This category probably also needs some additional categories, other than Category:Objects by ID. Auntof6 (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm OK with everything you said. I removed "Objects by ID". I moved the category to "Buildings with Docomomo Ibérico number" (as you suggested, minus the "s"). And I categorized it in "Modern movement architecture" through "Docodomo International" (Docomomo Ibérico is a pseudonational (Spain+Portugal) suborganization of Docomomo International). Regards. Strakhov (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I just applied null edits to everything in the category to get the contents to move to the new category. As far as I'm concerned, this CfD can be closed now. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Has been moved to Category:Buildings with Docomomo Ibérico number. Deleted by Hystrix 21 December 2016. --Achim (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I just applied null edits to everything in the category to get the contents to move to the new category. As far as I'm concerned, this CfD can be closed now. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Done per above. --Achim (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Titel is misleading. Should be renamed to Republica (band) many wrong pictures Hiddenhauser (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Support Republica means a variety of things, especially when you take different languages into account. Disambiguating to Category:Republica (band) is quite logical. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Moved and redirected to Category:Republica (band) via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
who is this guy anyway, and why did he upload so many of his selfies ? Pippobuono (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- I started a bulk DR. --Achim (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted by Jcb. --Achim (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Propose renaming to "Choir, Mongolia". That would match the English Wikipedia article name and help eliminate confusion with other meanings of "choir" (the singing groups and the architectural meaning). Auntof6 (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support, gallery reads Choir, Mongolia as well. --Achim (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Seems obvious to me. Well-spotted, Auntof6. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Makes sense (even if Mongolians like to sing a lot...) --Latebird (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: via COM:CDC. --Achim (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves. Achim (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
{{move cat|Ida (vocalist)|Ida Gard|artist name is Ida Gard, not Ida|LeoDE}}
Oppose According tho dkcharts the stage name is Ida. Fullname is Oostergaard, anyway. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hedwig, es sind vermutlich zwei unterschiedliche dänische Sängerinnen Ida. Ich schieb's nachher mal zur weiteren Klärung ins CfD rüber. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Per da:wp there are
- da:Ida Østergaard Madsen, born in 1994, Ida on d:Q1656477, instagram, album cover
- da:Ida Gard, born in 1986, Ida Gard on d:Q23777427, web site, album cover
I'm not sure if on all of the wp pages linked via wikidata everything is assigned correctly. Pinging OhMyGard, LeoDE, EileenSanda, Greenock125, HvW. --Achim (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: The singer on the photo is da:Ida Østergaard Madsen. I can see that the article about Ida Gard on the German Wikipedia is linked with the Danish article about the winner of the Danish x-factor, but I think that there are two different Danish singers named Ida, which have been mixed up here. The one on the photos is Ida Maria Østergaard Madsen, born in 1994, who won the Danish X-factor. But Ida Gard seems to be another singer, se this website: idagardmusic.com
- This one however looks like the Ida who won the Danish X-factor: facebook.com/idamariamusik/
- I took the photos of the X-factor Ida, it was shortly after the end of the competition. So the person on the photos is of Ida Maria Østergaard Madsen. The German article should be corrected, as they have mixed two different singers, as far as I can se. Best regards --EileenSanda (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- So there is an article about the XFactor winner, but not about "Ida Gard" in dewiki? This confuses me... -LeoDE (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Leo, scheint aber doch so zu sein. --Achim (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- So there is an article about the XFactor winner, but not about "Ida Gard" in dewiki? This confuses me... -LeoDE (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Content of the cats is okay, wikidata links as well. --Achim (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Cat to be deleted please, name mis-spelled, moved to Category:Militon arms Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be dupe of Category:Aquila A 210. Achim (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- No problem transfer all the files in it to Aquila a 210 and delete, re-direct or just leave it empty.--Petebutt (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Empty now, deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Category:Europeana Art History Challenge and its country-related subcategories
[edit]I have created this category several months ago, but in discussion with Europeana's Wikimedia ambassador @Wittylama: I would like to have it removed together with all its country-related subcategories.
It mainly functions as a tracking category, but severely pollutes the existing statistics of Europeana's own uploads, which is why Europeana itself wants to see it removed.
Furthermore, the Europeana Art History Challenge was a Wikidata and Wikipedia campaign, was not about uploads to Commons, and the vast majority of the files in this category and its subcategories were not uploaded from Europeana at all. Spinster (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sandra, the line [[Category:Europeana Art History Challenge*]] has to be removed from all of the files (and from 19 subcats) of the [[Category:Europeana Art History Challenge*]] categories without any move/replacement, did I get it right? --Achim (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Achim, yes, that's right. Spinster (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Cats emptied & deleted. You're welcome. --Achim (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks! Wittylama will be happy as well. Spinster (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The same painter as Raimund von Wichera Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I have created this category, because there was no Wikipedia article for this painter then and I did not know, if he was normally referred to with or without the "von". Now it is clear, an article was written and a correct category created. So, I would strongly support deleting it, to avoid confusing future contributor. Please delete it. Thanks to Szczebrzeszynski for reporting it. --Sapfan (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Sapfan: Any reason to actually delete it instead of leaving it as a redirect? That way if someone else enters "Raimund Wichera", they'll end up in the right place. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Kept the redirect because both of the names seem to be in use. --Achim (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
There are two Portuguese sculptors:
Artur is the father of Pedro --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Steps to fix:
- If there is anything in this category for Artur, move it to Category:Artur Anjos Teixeira.
- Rename this category to be for Pedro. (A note in the category already says it is for him.)
- Turn this category into a disambiguation category.
- How does that sound?--Auntof6 (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- That is a lot of work but I try it. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- User:JotaCartas created a surname cat. I think the disambiguation category is done. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the cleaning up. I created the category that way because Pedro Anjos Teixeira worked and lived in Madeira, and is generally known by that name here, thanks to you it has been corrected now.-- Darwin Ahoy! 04:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguated to Category:Artur Anjos Teixeira and Category:Pedro Anjos Teixeira. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Out of Scope, promotional The Photographer 11:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted by Didym. --Achim (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
empty category , was a wrong name Fiver, der Hellseher (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
This category should be deleted. It's replaced with Category:Meilahti Tower Hospital. The new name is more suitable because this category is for files concerning a specific hospital buiding in Meilahti Hospital area and that building has a specific name. Htm (talk) 11:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, but next time please move the category instead of creating a new one, thanks. --Achim (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Renamed, deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
No "Hongkou Road" in Shanghai Fayhoo (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Judging by the Wikipedia link, what I meant what Category:Hankou Road, Shanghai, I don't remember how I came up with this label but I suppose the page can simply be deleted (or turned into a redirect if that's better for traceability). --Zolo (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Empty, deleted. --Achim (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Woops, created category but named it incorrectly. The person is John Miles Kendrick, not John Mills. Can you correct this? Thanks Drbones1950 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:John Miles Kendrick. --Achim (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
make no sense Sonia Sevilla (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It's three years old and empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: Empty, deleted. --Achim (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Empty category. Unclear what this category is supposed to contain. Takeaway (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- This category is less than 24 hours old. Have you asked the creator if they plan to populate it? If he/she doesn't plan to, you can put {{Empty page}} on the category instead of discussing here. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! I now did. Let's see if the IP who created this category responds. - Takeaway (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- A look through the user's contributions suggest the category was created for Category:Thomas Thieme, I guess because he appeared (or will appear?) in this German TV show (Tempel) that, as far as I can see, only started airing last week. Unlikely that we'll find any free content from the show, I imagine. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- As the category should be called Category:Tempel (TV series) per the above info by Themightyquill, it would seem a good idea to delete this category as a misspelling, and create a new category with the correct spelling eventually if needed. - Takeaway (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleting as empty, incorrectly spelled category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Move to Category:Canadian National Exhibition as per en:Canadian National Exhibition and to improve avoid confusion with other things named CNE (see en:CNE). The same applies to sub-categories with the initials. Themightyquill (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Acronyms should always be spelled out. This page could become a disambiguation category if there are other existing things to put in it; otherwise, it could stay as a redirect for now. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Support, per Auntof6. I feel the same way about the renaming of articles such as "PATH" (Port Authority Trans-Hudson) and "SEPTA" (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transporation Authority). ----DanTD (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Canadian National Exhibition. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
This category name needs to be in English, but I don't know how to translate it. Can someone help? Auntof6 (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- I found this. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- All files were moved into the category:Musa Dzhalil Street 19, Kazan, in accordance with house address in Kazan --Ludvig14 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Generally better to add to an open discussion before taking action, Ludvig14, but since no one else with knowledge was participating, this seems like an acceptable solution to me. Are you okay to close, Auntof6? - Themightyquill (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, with the proviso that I don't personally know that the new cat name matches the old one, but I'll trust my colleagues on that. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I'll try to explain (sorry for my English). This house is a cultural heritage object in Russia with number 1600145000, you can check it here [1], search by number. The house has an address улица Мусы Джалиля, 19 - the same as the name of created category. The same house with the same address is in Ru-wiki [2] and I found this problem category, starting from the image in the info-box. We often use addresses for naming categories with cultural heritage objects (see Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Kazan, for example), so I think the name of this particular category should be quite all right. --Ludvig14 (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, with the proviso that I don't personally know that the new cat name matches the old one, but I'll trust my colleagues on that. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Generally better to add to an open discussion before taking action, Ludvig14, but since no one else with knowledge was participating, this seems like an acceptable solution to me. Are you okay to close, Auntof6? - Themightyquill (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- All files were moved into the category:Musa Dzhalil Street 19, Kazan, in accordance with house address in Kazan --Ludvig14 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Redirected too Category:Musa Dzhalil Street 19, Kazan. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone object to renaming this category and its subcats to be for both holidays and observances? The line between what's a holiday and what's an observance can be thin, and some things can be seen as both. For example, Category:Christmas is under both Category:December observances and Category:Holidays by name (as well as Category:Christian festivals). We have other combined categories by time: Category:Holidays and observances by decade and Category:Holidays and observances by year, so this would be in line with those. Auntof6 (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, that makes sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Renamed according to nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Mystifications. Must be delete. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Ahaania.gif — Green Zero обг 19:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep category until all the contained images have been deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Files deleted. Deleting category as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Suggest that the category be renamed "Grace Cathedral (Episcopal), San Francisco" for disambiguation Drbones1950 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with qualifying the name, but I think just adding the city would be enough (unless there's another one in San Francisco). Then this page could become a dab page. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Auntof6's suggestion of Category:Grace Cathedral, San Francisco. There's no need to include Episcopal here unless it's part of the church's name. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Done: done, no redir for DAB. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
can someone resolve the mess? Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- I really don't understand what's going on here. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Konecsny Károly amatőr fotós.--User:Pataki Mártaforrás 09:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I see - it's the name of the photographer. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I have moved Category:Konecsny Károly to Category:Károly Konecsny to follow usual naming conventions and moved all the photos to a Photographs by subcategory.
Wagram is a part of St. Pölten. It is neither a municipality nor is it in Bezirk Tulln. The other Wagram is a region in Lower Austria / Weinviertel but then the preposition 'in' IMHO is wrong. Kellergassen are structured by municipality. This category should be deleted. Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe it is "Wagram am Wagram", part of Grafenwörth (like Feuersbrunn)? -BSonne (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- if so, than it should be renamed to Category:Kellergassen in Grafenwörth. After all there is, except Feuersbrunn, no Kellergasse image under Grafenwörth. I removed Category:Kellergassen_in_Fels_am_Wagram [3] from this category, thus it is clear that the wine region was the topic and not the village Wagram in Grafenwörth. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- According to the category's first edit comment, it seems that this category refers to the Wagram wine region. Maybe the same idea led to creation of Category:Kellergassen in Kamptal, Category:Kellergassen in Traisental, and Category:kellergassen in Weinviertel. Is it reasonable to categorize cellars according to vine regions? I doubt (particularly, as not all of the cellars have to do with wine; in Waldviertel they have been used to store potatoes rather than wine.). But if so, those category names have to be changed (e.g. to Kellergassen in Wagram wine region), as the definition of the wine regions differs from the usual definition of the same-named landscapes Wagram, Kamptal, Traisental and Weinviertel.--Niki.L (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- See the (my) structure in the Gallery on Kellergassen. Also the article on wine in Autria: Wagram is one of the wine regions in Lower Austria. Between Krems and Vienna lies the Donauland, which covers two very different areas. North of the Danube is the plateau of Wagram, etc. In my detailed Atlas (1995) it was named Donauland. Places are Feuersbrunn am Wagram, Fels, Gösing, Grossriedenthal, Kirchberg am Wagram and Klosterneuburg. BSonne is right! Regarding Niki.L comment, I disagree, because he mixes (ordinary) cellars and Kellergassen. Again see the Gallery definition. Have a good end year. Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 09:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you choose to ignore the fact that there exist Kellergassen in western parts Lower Austria that have nothing to do with wine (e.g. Category:Kellergassen in St. Bernhard-Frauenhofen, Category:St. Leonhard am Forst), there still remains the problem with the definition of the borders of the wine regions. Villages like Böheimkirchen are part of the wine region Wagram, although they have nothing to do with the typical Wagram landscape. Moreover, villages in the Wagram landscape like Fels am Wagram are part of the historical administrative unit (and large landscape) Weinviertel, but they are not part of the Weinviertel wine region. Additionally, borders, names and number of wine regions are quite frequently changed; I see no sense to categorize geographical objects like Kellergassen into wine region categories that are defined by economical/marketing considerations rather than by geographical facts.--Niki.L (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- See the (my) structure in the Gallery on Kellergassen. Also the article on wine in Autria: Wagram is one of the wine regions in Lower Austria. Between Krems and Vienna lies the Donauland, which covers two very different areas. North of the Danube is the plateau of Wagram, etc. In my detailed Atlas (1995) it was named Donauland. Places are Feuersbrunn am Wagram, Fels, Gösing, Grossriedenthal, Kirchberg am Wagram and Klosterneuburg. BSonne is right! Regarding Niki.L comment, I disagree, because he mixes (ordinary) cellars and Kellergassen. Again see the Gallery definition. Have a good end year. Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 09:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jacquesverlaeken: as it is described in Kellergassen, this is again a mixture of historic Viertel of Niederösterreich, wine regions and districts. (as with the fountains). I agree with Niki.L's posting. The main structure again is state - federal state - (district) - municipality. If you would like to have categories for wine regions, than choose obvious names like Category:Kellergassen in Wagram wine region, Category:Kellergassen in Kamptal wine region, etc. As Niki already proposed. Furthermore, there is no category Category:Wagram wine region, Category:Kamptal wine region, which would be the better choice (and put them under Category:Wine regions of Austria (extra Category:Wine regions of Lower Austria not needed?), Category:Wine regions by country). They are needed as base categories anyway, can contain more than underground stuff like cellars (e.g. vineyards, typical wine varieties, famous wine makers, …). So to make a proposal: Either delete the wine regions or make them real wine regions (Category:Kamptal wine region), separate the geographical structure from the marketing structure. Put the Kellergassen by municipality categories directly underneath the wine regions, no need for extra Kellergassen by wine region. Keep Category:Kellergassen in Weinviertel as a tribute to the organisational structure of the corresponding wiki project, but do not expand it to other Viertels. And to end with a humble remark: I would never dare to create a structure for Belgium beers. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
separated administrative structure from wine regions as proposed above. Created Category:Wine regions of Austria. @Jacquesverlaeken: , as a parallel structure you might copy things to the wine region branch. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
needs merge with Category:Fontana Družby Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Definitely the same fountain. Based solely on en:List of fountains in Bratislava, Fontana Družby is the correct name, so I'd suggest moving all files to that category and deleting Category:Námestie Slobody, Bratislava (fountain). - Themightyquill (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Merged Category:Námestie Slobody, Bratislava (fountain) to Category:Fontana Družby. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Has to be renamed, but I don't speak Russian language. Achim (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hello!Please explain what mistake did i do when I create this category? "The_librarians_add_photos_to_Wikipedia" it was a training for the librarians. Also It was a name for this training. I want to add some photos from this training which I created. Also I saw some photos from similar events where categories and events were named similar.--Alina Vozna (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Alina, it might be kept, but I can't say as long as this category is not categorised. So one had to guess the meaning of The librarians add photos to Wikipedia. --Achim (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please, tell me, what category can I use for adding my photos?--Alina Vozna (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Alina Vozna: For your own files, please use something equivalent to the other sub-categories of Category:User categories, (e.g. Category:Files by User:Alina Vozna). For an event, you might rename it to something more explicit (e.g. Category:Wikimedia Commons training for librarians in Khmelnytskyi) and place it in both Category:Wikimedia Ukraine Events and Category:Libraries in Khmelnytskyi. I hope that helps. If you need further help with this or anything else, please don't hesitate to ask on my talk page. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please, tell me, what category can I use for adding my photos?--Alina Vozna (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Alina, it might be kept, but I can't say as long as this category is not categorised. So one had to guess the meaning of The librarians add photos to Wikipedia. --Achim (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleting. Images have been successfully moved to Category:Images uploaded by the librarians during the Wiki-seminar in Khmelnytskyi by Dmitry Rozhkov. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Empty category Robby (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose in the meantime the category is no longer empty so he could be kept. Robby (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Kept. Category is no longer empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
EX Tower Bangkok - WBG Munich Meeting at 4.04.2017 at 10.30 pm 2A02:810D:293F:FE6F:8F8:E8A2:A695:3BB1 17:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Unclear nomiation by anon-ip. Category kept. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
(This includes all files in here, all subcategories, and all files in these subcategories.) Out of scope. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- @KATMAKROFAN: What makes these out of scope? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Mannequin Challenge may not be the proudest achievement of civilization, but it has a Wikipedia article, in quite a number of languages. This makes it clearly in scope. --rimshottalk 00:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly demonstrating what a "Mannequin Challenge" is, in order to give a clear understanding for the Wikipedia article, is within commons scope. --Tarawneh (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus to delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The current name of the museum is Beaney House of Art and Knowledge. Suggest this category be renamed (see EN WP article and official website). PKM (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- That would be fine by me. But please could we have a redirect from the old category name to the new name? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Beaney House of Art and Knowledge on January 3rd by P199. Please remember to close discussions when you take actions. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't the sub-categories use "Books about the history of X" or "Books on the history of X" rather than the awkward "Books of the history of X"? Zoupan (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- That is weird. I wonder how that got started. Category:Books about the history of X would match the example of Category:Books about history. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- If there's no opposition, Ruthven, could you help make these changes with a bot? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Moving "Category:Books of the history of XXX" to "Category:Books about the history of XXX". Ruthven (msg) 08:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
As far as I understand, Jenny Bergensten is not the author of these photographs and. at most, is the responsible of the scanning procedure. Therefore, the title of the category is wrong and the category should be, at most, a hidden category. Discasto talk 15:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- E' vero, guardando bene non si indica un autore, ma, dall'inventario, si risale ad una collezione di fotografie. Si potrebbe riclassificare come <Historical images of Barcelona from Hallwyl Museum>, forse? --Lalupa (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Creator:Jenny Bergensten is a museum employee whom both takes images (e.g. this) and scans historical images and blueprints. When she is tagged as the creator in the metadata the upload process automatically adds the template and her category. As for making that category hidden I'm ok with either.
- I agree that Category:Historical images of Barcelona by Jenny Bergensten is not appropriate, at most I would say "Historical images of Barcelona in the Hallwyl Museum" but I'm not sure that is of much use to the users of Category:Historical images of Barcelona. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- I would suggest a move to Category:Historical images of Barcelona in the Hallwyl Museum and place that in a new Category:Historical images of Barcelona by source and Category:Images from Hallwylska museet. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Works forme. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- I would suggest a move to Category:Historical images of Barcelona in the Hallwyl Museum and place that in a new Category:Historical images of Barcelona by source and Category:Images from Hallwylska museet. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I've moved this and related categories as discussed, and created a new CFD at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Jenny Bergensten. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This nomination also applies to all eight of the child categories. What's the point of them? They're marked as {{Empty category}}, which is meant for maintenance categories, but as far as I can tell they're otherwise ordinary (empty) categories for specific railroad rolling stock in Detroit, Michigan. Either they're meant for individual trams currently located in Detroit (in which case each subcategory should be removed from this category if the tram's been destroyed or relocated), or they're meant for images of these trams when they happen to visit Detroit (in which case they shouldn't be empty if we have any imagery at all). Since they're empty, I don't see the point of having them; I would have deleted them except for the template. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- From 1978 to 2003 there was a “heritage” tram line in Detroit running six former Lisbon units and two from other origins (one former Swiss and another former English car). Early this year the Detroit municipal authorities auctioned the mothballed vehicles. There are plenty of photos of them on line, but sadly I found so far none that’s suitably licensed. These categories were created while researching the a lateral subject (Lisbon trams that were/are in use elsewhere) and they contain information that might be hard to come by with a second time, namely fleet number correspondences. If you delete these categories now, whenever we find content that would be categorized in them, they’d have to be recreated (risking loss of some or all of the reserached details) or restored (which would be 2 admin actions, not bad). I’m hurrying to salvage this content though, because I already know where this is going, and ditto for all empty categories of Lisbon trams. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see a use for these empty categories that can't be filled some other way, and long-term keeping a bunch of empty categories with this template is a misuse of {{Empty category}} and really shouldn't be done, but of course I won't delete anything without giving you the chance to retain the metadata first. If you ask, I can copy the category titles (and anything else you want from them) into a page in your userspace; I'm not demanding that you do the work. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- I salvaged all of those empty categories pertaining Lisbon trams whose recreation is not trivial in their parent cat talk pages (user space doesn’t seem appropriate for this; I’m sure I was not the only creator, anyway). If you add the categories you delete to your watch list you may be able to restore the old edits after they are recreated. Of course I see no reason to delete any of them now, and I do see good reasons to keep around such empty categories, but I know better than go on too loudly about it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see a use for these empty categories that can't be filled some other way, and long-term keeping a bunch of empty categories with this template is a misuse of {{Empty category}} and really shouldn't be done, but of course I won't delete anything without giving you the chance to retain the metadata first. If you ask, I can copy the category titles (and anything else you want from them) into a page in your userspace; I'm not demanding that you do the work. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry, Tuvalkin. I appreciate your efforts but I don't see any reason to keep a bunch of empty categories in the hope they might be filled one day. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- So you want to delete something you appreciate? That’s odd. Anyway no biggie: When documentation about these items gets uploaded (or merely categorized, as it might very well be here already), I’ll be able to restore the work you appreciate so much thanks to backing up of the content now under threat of elimination. («In the hope of…», he says about eight twelve-meter long items that trundled along the downtown of Detroit for 20 years in the late 20th century — yeah, really unlikely to find media about this, tsk tsk. You cannot make this stuff up, really.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
What I meant, Tuvalkin, was that I recognize that you put a lot of effort in here, and I understand it feels frustrating to see it deleted. Empty categories deleted, excluding the base category Category:Former Lisbon trams in Detroit which has one image mentioning multiple lines. Feel free to restore the sub-categories when you provide content specific to those lines. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Categories ...to be categorised by name
[edit]I am putting this CfD under Category:To be categorised by name, but it is for all "to be categorised by name" categories. Many are subcategories of Category:To be categorised by name, but at least one is not. There are 54 categories in all. Here is the list:
- Category:Actors from Russia to be categorised by name
- Category:Actors from Ukraine to be categorised by name
- Category:Actors to be categorised by name
- Category:Actresses from Russia to be categorised by name
- Category:Actresses from Ukraine to be categorised by name
- Category:Actresses to be categorised by name
- Category:Categories of Russia to be categorised by name
- Category:Churches in Donetsk to be categorised by name
- Category:Companies of Ukraine to be categorised by name
- Category:Donetsk to be categorised by name
- Category:Magazines of Russia to be categorised by name
- Category:Monuments and memorials in Donetsk to be categorised by name
- Category:Musical groups from Belarus to be categorised by name
- Category:Musical groups from Russia to be categorised by name
- Category:Musical groups from Ukraine to be categorised by name
- Category:Musical groups from the Soviet Union to be categorised by name
- Category:Musical groups to be categorised by name
- Category:Musicians from Russia to be categorised by name
- Category:Musicians from Ukraine to be categorised by name
- Category:Musicians to be categorised by name
- Category:Newspapers of Russia to be categorised by name
- Category:Organizations of Russia to be categorised by name
- Category:Organizations of Ukraine to be categorised by name
- Category:Organizations to be categorised by name
- Category:Painters from Belarus to be categorised by name
- Category:Painters from Russia to be categorised by name
- Category:Painters from Ukraine to be categorised by name
- Category:Painters to be categorised by name
- Category:People of Belarus to be categorised by name
- Category:People of Donetsk to be categorised by name
- Category:People of Russia to be categorised by name
- Category:People of Ukraine to be categorised by name
- Category:People to be categorised by name
- Category:Politicians of Russia to be categorised by name
- Category:Politicians of Ukraine to be categorised by name
- Category:Politicians to be categorised by name
- Category:Populated places in Donetsk Oblast to be categorised by name
- Category:Populated places in Ukraine to be categorised by name
- Category:Regiments of the Imperial Russian Army to be categorised by name
- Category:Scientists from Russia to be categorised by name
- Category:Scientists from Ukraine to be categorised by name
- Category:Scientists to be categorised by name
- Category:Sculptors from Russia to be categorised by name
- Category:Sculptors from Ukraine to be categorised by name
- Category:Sculptors to be categorised by name
- Category:Seas to be categorised by name
- Category:Streets in Donetsk to be categorised by name
- Category:To be categorised by name
- Category:Ukraine to be categorised by name
- Category:Villages in Ukraine to be categorised by name
- Category:Writers from Belarus to be categorised by name
- Category:Writers from Russia to be categorised by name
- Category:Writers from Ukraine to be categorised by name
- Category:Writers to be categorised by name
- Note (5 Feb 2017): Other categories have been added to Category:To be categorised by name since this duscussion was started. Any "to be categorised by name" category is included in the request.
These categories aren't needed because there is no requirement to categorize people or things by name. In spite of recent efforts I've seen in various areas, it is fine to have individual files under upper-level categories. Having these categories causes the following issues:
- It creates an extra level to go through to find the files in them.
- It encourages creating categories for single entries, just to get files out of these categories. Creating single-entry categories is not a good thing.
- It makes it less likely that other desirable categories will be added to the files because the files are harder to find.
My proposal:
- Some of these categories have subcategories for unidentified subjects. These categories for unidentified subjects should be moved up the category tree to one or more appropriate places. For example, Category:Unidentified actresses should be moved to Category:Actresses.
- Other things should be moved up the category tree individually. For example, files under Category:Seas to be categorised by name should be moved under Category:Seas, unless there is a more precise category for them.
--Auntof6 (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Andrew Butko for to hear his opinion. --Achim (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support; those are absolutely pointless and also misleading categories. Furthermore, no user should make such wide-ranging changes to category trees without prior discussion. FDMS 4 19:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete totally per Auntof6. Please deleted these nonsense cats. Natuur12 (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support thank you, Auntof6, these categories are simply against the rules. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete no need to have such cats. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment: {{To be categorised by name}} is (hopefully) soon-to-be T2-eligible. FDMS 4 22:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Given the unanimous support of Auntof6's proposal I've started recategorising members of the nominated categories and subsequently requesting deletion of the empty categories. FDMS 4 17:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Done (mostly by Auntof6 – thank you!). FDMS 4 18:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Move to Category:Cihu Mausoleum for clarity? Themightyquill (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Or maybe one of the things listed in the English Wikipedia article as its official name: Mausoleum of Late President Lord Chiang or Chiang Kai-shek Mausoleum? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, but a redirect should be made from Category:Cihu Mausoleum (and the others, depending on which way you go...) - Themightyquill (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Mausoleum of Late President Lord Chiang and various redirects set up. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The category and their children should be in English (according to Commons:Language policy) Discasto talk 14:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- While I agree on the main category the subcategories are all references to the collection names/photo albums in the Hallwyl museum which are in Swedish. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- @André Costa (WMSE): Do you know enough Swedish to suggest an English translation for the main category? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe just "von Hallwyl family photo albums". It is not a literal translation but actually explains what the category is supposed to contain. In general this category should only contain other categories, no stray images. I'm intending to clean it up (create new categories and move images into them and existing), just havent had time yet... /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- @André Costa (WMSE): Do you know enough Swedish to suggest an English translation for the main category? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd certainly support a move of the main category to Category:von Hallwyl family photo albums. As for the sub-categories, I'm undecided. @André Costa (WMSE): For the purposes of clarity, could we not rename them to Category:Images from Johanna Kempe, f. Wallis resor genom Tyskland och Schweiz (1880) or Category:Images from Hallwyl Museum - Johanna Kempe, f. Wallis resor genom Tyskland och Schweiz (1880) or Category:von Hallwyl family photo albums - Johanna Kempe, f. Wallis resor genom Tyskland och Schweiz (1880) ? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- The last of the naming suggestions (Category:von Hallwyl family photo albums - ...) could work for the sub-categories since it makes a clear distinction between an English prefix and the Swedish title. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Renamed as agreed above. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Useless category with only a single file in it. Ankry (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think so. For example, Category:Five-color There is a single file in
- Category:Black, blue, green, orange, pink (Not my creation)
- Category:Black, blue, orange, pink, purple (Not my creation)
- "Not Useless". Files in each category, there is a possibility to increase in future. --Benzoyl (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I think this category is unnecessary.--Ralth Galth (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment For example, color coding is important in heraldry. Color categories work well for flags and emblems. But you created this category for can picture. It's not based on necessity but a whim.--禁樹なずな (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: It may be sparsely populated (for the time being), but it shares the scheme of all other subcats of Category:Four colors and its existence will enable/encourage a wider use. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This category shares a hierarchy with well over 200 other similar categories... most of which, admittedly, appear to contain only further subdivided 'five color' categories. The tree goes as deep as (from the ones I found) 'seven' color categories. If we are going to discuss the usefulness of this, we need to discuss the entire schema. This category fits with existing practice. Reventtalk 02:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
This category might be useful for commons graphics providers but it a) has an unclear title, b) shouldn't be in the general content tree. Should it be a user category, or a project category? Can we choose a better name? Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Themightyquill, I created this category so wikigraphist keep an handy access to key tools or example of works. Renaming into Category:Graphic Labs tools is welcome if we can make associated files to follow. --Yug (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Yug. Moved to Category:Graphic Lab tools and placed in Category:Graphic Lab. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
In my opinon most (if not all) of the images in this category (and its subcategories) are not hoar frost but rime (deposit of ice due to freezing fog) or even simply crystallized snow; usually hoar frost do not form ice deposits on trees and vertical objects but only on horizontal surfaces such as ground, roofs and so on. Hoar frost is possible on vertical objects only when they are made of metal or other materials that lose quickly their superficial temperature; a rarer kind of hoar frost (advection hoar frost) may however form ice deposits on trees but the amount of frost is generally tiny. Carnby (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Very possible. I have no objections to renaming this category to reflect its true scope since I was not aware of the terminology nuances when I created it. --Pitke (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Might as well put in these links: w:Hoar frost (which re-directs to frost), wikt:hoar frost, and wikt:rime.199.7.156.141 23:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Would it not make more sense to simply rename as Category:Frost on trees as a subcategory of Category:Frost on plants? Skinsmoke (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- As other frost is common, that category should be created. Whether this category should be made a subcategory or deleted probably depends on the likeliness we get any adequate content in this category, but getting miscategorized images here should be much less common when having that category. --LPfi (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree to the proposition to move tis category to frost on trees --anro (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- As other frost is common, that category should be created. Whether this category should be made a subcategory or deleted probably depends on the likeliness we get any adequate content in this category, but getting miscategorized images here should be much less common when having that category. --LPfi (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Would it not make more sense to simply rename as Category:Frost on trees as a subcategory of Category:Frost on plants? Skinsmoke (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Might as well put in these links: w:Hoar frost (which re-directs to frost), wikt:hoar frost, and wikt:rime.199.7.156.141 23:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Frost on trees, as per consensus. --rimshottalk 19:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Believe that this category should be renamed St. George's (Episcopal) Church Flushing Queens. It is not Church of England (as one of the images suggests), and the diocesan website names it St. Georges Church in Flushing. Drbones1950 (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the name of the category suggests any specific diocese. Is there another St. Georges Church in Flushing that I don't know about? Also Episcopal Churches do tend to have their origins in the Church of England. ----DanTD (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Kept, no reply in a year to the quite valid objection that nothing about "St. George's Church (Flushing, Queens)" suggests Church of England. --rimshottalk 20:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Should be deleted. Far from useful – only two images are sorted in, but there are a lot other users from Pixabay with more images uploaded to Commons. Also category Images from Pixabay exists, where every image from Pixabay is sorted in (as long as template {{Pixabay}} is used). Speravir 04:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Clarification please. Isn't the assertion "but there are a lot other users from Pixabay with more images uploaded to Commons" an argument for you to work on improving how those other Pixabay contributors' images are organized? Geo Swan (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Clarification please. Images from Pixabay contains 1662 images. Could you please explain why this doesn't require further subcategorization? Geo Swan (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Clarification please. Nominator Speravir, you assert that two images are insufficient to justify organizing the images into a subcategory? Which policy document backs up this assertion? How many images do you think do justify organizing images into a subcategory? Surely it occurred to you that additional HaloJim images might justify being uploaded here? Geo Swan (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I know it these “hidden”, technical categories for image sources are not further divided, especially when they are assigned to the files with template inclusion like here. In this special case you would act against COM:OVERCAT, because strictly this questioned cat would belong below Category:Images from Pixabay (moving it there was actually my first intent). — Speravir – 18:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I asked if you could help with a link to a policy. Your response seems to be a "as far as I know" -- an impression, not a link to policy. Can I assume this means you can't remember which policy, if any, your impression is based on? Geo Swan (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Speravir, you cite COM:OVERCAT. Well, it says: "The general rule is always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those." Doesn't that passage instruct us that, rather than delete the most specific category, these images should be trimmed from the higher level category? Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Speravir, there are several points I asked you to clarify , which you did not address. Should I assume you aren't planning to address these points, and there is no point waiting for clarification? Geo Swan (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- I actually thought to have it clarified … — Speravir – 23:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Not even close I am afraid. Maybe if you tried reading my comments more carefully... Geo Swan (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment: The category now contains 4 images. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think 4 files don't justify a user category.--Tostman (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hm, IMO this category might be deleted because it doesn't look useful to me, but on the other hand there are a lot of subcats of Category:Flickr streams or Category:Panoramio streams keeping 4 or less files. So I don't think we'll reach a consensus here to delete the cat. Geo Swan, could you agree to renaming it to Category:Files from HaloJim Pixabay stream to get it consistent with others? --Achim (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Apart from this: If not deleted it should be moved somewhere below cat. Pixabay I think. Files by Pixabay users? — Speravir – 18:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oooh, Achim already has moved it. — Speravir – 18:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hä?? --Achim (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- I speak of Special:Diff/225705430/253194192. — Speravir – 20:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hä?? --Achim (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oooh, Achim already has moved it. — Speravir – 18:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment -- I had to remind myself of what was going on here.
- I am satisfied with the status quo
- I think the problem was a template, that was being added to all images from Pixabay, added the Parent cat. I saw this as a problem with the template, not with categories like this one, which are just as valid as similar cateogories for flickr users, etc.
- I see no problem with categories with small numbers of members. Geo Swan (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment -- I have applied the template that is used in case of other Pixabay users - Anasuya.D (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer, Anasuya.D. So I noticed Clusternote’s categorizations (also other Pixabay users, own category tree) which essentially make the reason obsolete why I once started this discussion. So, in my eyes we could close here without further change. Achim? — Speravir – 22:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Category kept, consensus to close this case. --Achim (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Should this category be merged with Category:Buddhist monasteries and temples in Bhutan? Or should that category maybe be split into separate categories, one for monasteries and one for temples? Auntof6 (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say the problem originates one level up with Category:Monasteries and temples in Bhutan. If there's already a Category:Religious buildings in Bhutan (which follows the standard at commons), what's the advantage of grouping temples and monasteries? I'd suggest deleting it, and coverting Category:Buddhist monasteries and temples in Bhutan to Category:Buddhist monasteries in Bhutan, and splitting the sub-categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Does that work for you? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, that temples and monasteries would be in separate categories at all levels, then yes. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Does that work for you? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
There were times when I couldn't tell if something was a temple or a monastery by looking, so I moved all the "monasteries and temples" categories to "Category:Buddhist buildings in Bhutan" categories. The Category:Buddhist temples in Bhutan and Category:Buddhist monasteries in Bhutan still exist as a separation. I hope that's okay. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
This category name implies that the entries will be grouped by a "COAM Register number". ("COAM" is the Colegio Oficial de Arquitectos de Madrid.) However, no such number is mentioned in the names of either the subcategories or the file in this category. The number is mentioned in their descriptions. I think this category should be renamed, maybe to something like "Buildings on the COAM Register". Doing that would require changing Template:COAM, which assigns this category. Auntof6 (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Agreed on all points. If someone wants to organize things according to their registration number, a gallery would be a good place to do it. Organizing images and sub-categories by a (non-visible) number is rarely useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- My intention was to mark the items tagged with the template, not to actually sort them out by their ID. So I guess it is a mistake. I think the name of the category can be modified in order to reflect that purpose, maybe performing the change by->with.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- I do support the category rename. It's as simple as updating {{COAM}} --Discasto talk 10:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- May I do it? --Discasto talk 11:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Discasto: Sure, after all this is a wiki.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Done However, I don't know whether every child category must be edited for the template to be reloaded ?? --Discasto talk 15:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Discasto: Sure, after all this is a wiki.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- May I do it? --Discasto talk 11:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- I do support the category rename. It's as simple as updating {{COAM}} --Discasto talk 10:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- My intention was to mark the items tagged with the template, not to actually sort them out by their ID. So I guess it is a mistake. I think the name of the category can be modified in order to reflect that purpose, maybe performing the change by->with.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Buildings of Madrid with COAM Register number. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
For the sake of symmetry and functionality, I suggest that Category:Paintings by painter and Category:Sculptures by sculptor (and other similar categories in the Category:Works by artist category tree) might be better off disambiguated with "by artist" like Category:Cartoons by artist (not by cartoonist) and Category:Illustrations by artist (not by illustrator). It's certainly not technically incorrect to specify the type of artist that makes a sculpture, but there's no reason for it. It's unnecessary disambiguation. If Vincent van Gogh had made one or two sculptures, it wouldn't go in "Sculptures by painter" because he was primarily a painter. In this category tree, "sculptor" or "painter" always means the artist that created the piece, using anything other than artist is redundant and unnecessarily complicated. Themightyquill (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. If this is done, I'd like to leave the more-specific terms in Template:ByCat, just in case. Right now, there is this line in the template (except without the line breaks I'm inserting for easier reading):
|creator|architect|arranger|artist|author|cartographer|choreographer|composer|designer|director- |engraver|ensemble|illustrator|interpreter|librettist|medallist|musician|painter|performer|photographer
|portraitist|sculptor|vocalist|writer = creator
- --Auntof6 (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment 2. For whatever pages are moved, please be sure to change the parameters in the {{MetaCat}} templates on the pages. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- OK. --JMCC1 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Done, Themightyquill. See category:works by artist.
- Please move files and categories from the two redirects category:Paintings by painter and category:sculptures by sculptor
- I did not move that categories. Please take a look at the history in category:Paintings by painter with category:Paintings by painter and category:sculptures by sculptor with category:sculptures by artist and resolve to swap the histories or not.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 17:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- I did not change Category:compositions by composer because, for instance, musicals and and operas are made by two different kind of artists (writer and musician) and because we have first to hamonize the category:works by artist, category:works by author, category:works by creator and category:works by writer
- Please close this discussion. I do not know how to do it.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 07:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Moved to "by artist" - Themightyquill (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This category appears to be redundant. Commons policy in COM:CAT states "It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure", for the purpose of a user searching for a particular type of file/image that will be suitable for their needs. The top category for individual aircraft registrations should always be of a standardised form such as XXXXX (aircraft), to disambiguate it from other subjects such as XXXXX (bird) or XXXXX (city) or XXXXX (mathematics), etc. If we have images at Commons of more than one aircraft type/model for the same registration, then (and only then) do we need to create sub-categories for the multiple types/models. Those sub-cats are then named in a form such as XXXXX (Boeing 707), XXXXX (Piper J3C), etc, where the aircraft manufacturer/type/model is abbreviated to achieve just enough understandable disambiguation. Only the top category needs to be in Category:Aircraft by registration and Category:Aircraft registered in countryXX, because its sub-cats will inherit those properties in the category hierarchy. If a user is searching for an image based on either a registration or aircraft manufacturer/type/model, they can then browse the category tree to access the image via the above parameters. The Category:Re-used aircraft registrations seems to have no useful purpose, and therefore superfluous to Commons policies and aims. I don't recall ever placing registration categories into it, and I'm guessing that the present total of 711 sub-cats is nowhere near the theoretical total of current candidate categories, and if so, it cannot even be a comprehensive reflection of its own 'rationale'. I propose that it should be removed from all its sub-cats, then itself be deleted. PeterWD (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete @PeterWD and Docu: This category does not serve a meaningful purpose. As per PeterWD, it should be deleted. There has been no opposition to it in a couple of years, so let's close this and the category. Josh (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@PeterWD: Closed (no objections; delete) Josh (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Gryffindor has been moving categories from "YearX in the Czech Republic" to "YearX in Czechia". It would surprise me if these moves were uncontroversial, so I'd like to ask you not to do any more until after some discussion has taken place. Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please note that english wikipedia has has multiple discussions of this move [4] [5] [6] [7] dating back to 2011 with a rather consistent result of no change. I accept that English wikipedia should not be the only factor in the decision at commons, but in this case, where it reflects common usage in English, it would seem especially relevant.- Themightyquill (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Mormegil: , who I see has already commented on this issue elsewhere. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
See corresponding English article History of the Czech lands for naming guidance, also note that the name has been changed by the government to simple "Czechia", which makes more sense now as well. Commons does not have categories named "History of the French Republic". Gryffindor (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- There might be some merit when discussing history, particularly pre-1993, but is less convincing for recently moved categories like Category:Companies of Czechia. France is obviously the common name for the country in English. Czechia is far less so. Also unlike France, Czechia is not the name of the country in the language of the country. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- I should add, I'm not dead-set against the move, but I'm rather disappointed in the users who started a mass move without discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- When I saw that Czech Republic Categories are being moved I have check this fact on web. In Polish newspapers we are told, that the Czech Ministry had officially changed the official English translation for the name of their country. I saw nothing to discuss => this is not a change of the common name, which can be discussed, but a Czech's government official press state.
- In each case when I was mistaken -- I had always reverted my editions. If the community of Commons decides to reject the official position of the Czech government, I will, of course, revert all of my edits.
- Please accept my apologies for this move: I just do not even crossed my mind, that the official government change of the English name, may be discussed and rejected on the Commons. I'm really sorry. Wieralee (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- No worries, Wieralee. It did seem rather out of character for you, and your explanation is perfectly reasonable. Thanks for offering to help make it right if the move is ultimately rejected.
- From my understanding, they have created an official short name for their country, though not actually changed the old official name. I don't know if other countries even have "official short names" - I assumed they had "official long names" and "commonly used short names" - but I could certainly be wrong on that. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I mean this move is strongly controversial and I disagree with it. First thing is that this is new official short name. Second thing is that nowhere is written we must use short form instead the long form. Third thing is that very big amount of people hate and boycott this form. The fourth thing is that nobody uses new short form. It means that this short form violates as minimum two rules: NPOV and expectability. --Palu (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Primarily, names "YearX in the Czech Republic" were absolutely inappropriate for the years before 1969. "YearX in Czechia" is an acceptable solution, maybe more universal and neutral than a possible alternative "YearX in Czech lands" which evokes the defunct land system of government.
However, the way of creation of this category "History of Czechia" is a bit inconsistent. Either should be the original category History of the Czech Republic MOVED to the new name History of Czechia, or should be kept as its subcategory (because the Czech Republic is a period of the history of Czechia since 1969, as an independent country since 1993).
I personally support the revived old Latin-based word "Czechia" as an expectable equivalent of similar non-political names of other countries. However, the name is objectively not sufficiently established yet, and thats why it can be felt as controversial.
Btw., the sentence "the name has been changed by the government to simple Czechia" is not accurate. The full name of the state was not changed. Nothing was changed. The governnemnt only "sanctified" the geographical (non-political) name of the country to be used also officialy as the short name of the state. But geographical authorities used the short form before it officially.
Czechia (defined by the common history of Czech lands as well as by the Czech language) and Slovakia existed continuously during the period of Austro-Hungarian monarchy, almost-unitary Czechoslovakia and federative Czechoslovakia, but the problem comes from the fact, that the English language mainstream ignored the existing identity of Czechia before 1993. That's why mainstream English seems to have no established word for Czechia before creation and independence of the Czech Republic. As we can see in discussions at the English Wikipedia, some "native speakers" are able to consider "Czechoslovakia" as a synonyme of "the Czech Republic" and to advocate it even in edit wars. No wonder that such ignorants never heard about Czechia before 1993. IMHO well-educated English-speakers and specialized and proffesional English texts should be taken into consideration rather than a poor knowledge of common people. And last but not least, the official statement of the Czech government should be also reflected seriously. (Even though the inertia of habits and knowledges tends to preserve the past and overcome and to resist the new and present.)
I realize that the revived traditional word "Czechia" can be felt as a controversial neologism. We should be not too hurry with renaming of categories, but I agree, that the historical categories (Czechia by year, historical events, personalities etc.) should be renamed preferentially (Comenius or Jan Hus are surely not from the "Czech Republic"), while categories focused to the today photos and events can bear the "republican" name some time further. --ŠJů (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- I understand that Czech's people get used to the old name... Until now Czechia had not got an official short name, so it was the only solution. But now? Other countries use their short names on Commons -- and it is easier for all... Just look at Category:Categories of countries We use
- - France (French: [fʁɑ̃s]), officially the French Republic (French: République française),
- - Germany (German: Deutschland), officially the Federal Republic of Germany (German: Bundesrepublik Deutschland)
- - Greece (Greek: Ελλάδα [eˈlaða]), officially the Hellenic Republic
- - Poland (Polish: Polska [ˈpɔlska], officially the Republic of Poland (Polish: Rzeczpospolita Polska), etc.
- In all cases we use official shortnames on Commons. I see any reason (excluding habits and emotions) to break this rule for Czechia... Wieralee (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Alternatively, one might argue that we use common names. For most countries, common names are the short names. For the Czech Republic/Czechia, this is not the case. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Not in this case... We have the Commission for Standarization of Geographical Names as a part of The United Nations. There is an official list for official country names and their official shortcuts. Untill now Czechia hasn't got an official shortcut, but the Czech's government decided to establish it now.... Wieralee (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure understand your statement here, Wieralee. Are you saying that commons *does* use the official list of the UN Commission for Standarization of Geographical Names as a part of The United Nations for naming all locations, or that is *should* ? - Themightyquill (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- I mean its not about short name, but about common name. And even if it would be about short name, it will not be about controversial, unusual short name, neologism. We have also "Category:History of the Dominican Republic" and nobody care. And vice versa, the Czech republic sounds naturally, Czechia sounds like "we quickly need short name! any short name!". --Palu (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the Dominican Republic is a good equivalent, since afaik, there's no official short form. If that country's government decided that English speakers should start calling it "Dominicia", we're have an equivalent, but for the moment, I can't find any parallel situations. We do sometimes use official long titles like Category:Republic of Ireland but that's for disambiguation purposes. The Czech government's action here seems unprecedented in history. Maybe the United Arab Emirates will follow their lead before long and we'll have to debate change everything to Category:History of the Emirates - Themightyquill (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- OK, but Czech government didnt decided that English speakers should start calling the Czech Republic "Czechia". They decided, that if you want use short name, it should be "Czechia". Nobody said, that we must use short form. Especially in controversial case like Czechia (which is not so controversial like Dominicia, but still strongly controversial and in the same way controversial - controversial through its unnaturalness and its neologycity). --Palu (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the Dominican Republic is a good equivalent, since afaik, there's no official short form. If that country's government decided that English speakers should start calling it "Dominicia", we're have an equivalent, but for the moment, I can't find any parallel situations. We do sometimes use official long titles like Category:Republic of Ireland but that's for disambiguation purposes. The Czech government's action here seems unprecedented in history. Maybe the United Arab Emirates will follow their lead before long and we'll have to debate change everything to Category:History of the Emirates - Themightyquill (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think, "Dominican Republic" is used to distinguish the country from the capital city, which has a name identic with the original name of the whole colony of Santo Domingo and even with the old name of the whole island of Hispaniola (including todays Haiti]. As said in the article en:Dominican Republic#Names and etymology "for most of its history (up until independence), the country was known as Santo Domingo and continued to be commonly known as such in English until the early 20th century." "Dominicia" would be a neologism, while Czechia is verifiably not a neologism but an old word which was revived in 1930s and 1990s and officially supported recently, but even before it and meanwhile used continuously by many acquainted people. "Czechia" was not invented nor created by the Czech government recently, but accepted, certified and promoted. As well as by geographic authorities who accepted it in 1990s already. Yes, Commons should use a "common" name. But "common" in learned and expert people, or "common" in ignorant, unaware or uninformed and belated people who are not able to distinguish between Bohemia and Czechia, between Czechia and Czechoslovakia or between the country and the republic and whose language sense is formed rather by habits than by real and deep understanding of the language and its principles, history and evolution? Yes, Czech Republic is the most official (and maybe still most common) name, but only a name of the republic, not of the country itself. The Czech Republic is very, very young subject, one of the youngest states in the world. However, Czechia existed ages before it, even though some of its names can be felt as controversial or unfamiliar. --ŠJů (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Czechia (or Česko in Czech) is the official name of the country, which has been promoted by the government for the last years. It means now there are probably two official names of the country at least in English. Its to be derterminated in proper resources. In this point I would say it is more controversial the Czech short name of the country than the English one.
- But also the point of ŠJů is important and should be considered. Three examples "1905 in the Czech Republic" (at that time the country was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire and not a republic), "1956 in the Czech Republic" (still no Czech Republic, but Czechoslovakia). The question here is if we respect the history or we assumed that everything in the means of actual Czech Republic is covered by the most recent name.--Juandev (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Juandev, I'll accept that Category:1905 in the Czech Republic is anachronism and does present one reason to use Czechia (or Czech lands, or something else) for those pre-1991 history categories. On the other hand, as you can see at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10/Category:1800 in Canada, this problem extends beyond the Czech Republic, and we don't have a good solution. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Juandev and Themightyquill: Regrettably, English language doesn't distinguish clearly between a country and a state regime and use the word "country" for both meanings. I think, to use the (non-political, but possibly national) country name retrospectively is more acceptable then to use the state-regime name this way. The country itself exists countinuously (even though its names, inhabitant nations and borders can change from time to time), while the states (regimes, republics, monarchies, federations etc.) arise and perish. Czechia (as an area) existed from everlasting, even though first Czechs as a nation appeared ca. in the 10th century and the word Czechia or Česko in the 17th century and even though some people refuse this its name. On the other hand, absolutely none Czech Republic existed before 1969. --ŠJů (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Juandev, I'll accept that Category:1905 in the Czech Republic is anachronism and does present one reason to use Czechia (or Czech lands, or something else) for those pre-1991 history categories. On the other hand, as you can see at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10/Category:1800 in Canada, this problem extends beyond the Czech Republic, and we don't have a good solution. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I fundamentally disagree with these changes, even without prior discussion. There is no change at article name on enwiki, "new name" is not yet widely accepted (see [8] for example). --Jklamo (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Simply said, Czechia is horrible word and is not commonly accepted. And it's NOT official name of this country as Juandev suggesting! --Ragimiri 18:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Ragimiri: I know, that some Czech people are in opposition with their government. But on the official list for official country names and their official shortcuts we see "CZECHIA". Untill now Czechia hasn't got an official shortcut, but the Czech's government decided to establish it now. Look at The Commission for Standarization of Geographical Names of The United Nations official list [9]. It is just a fact, even if the Czech opposition doesn't like it. Wieralee (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- According to Czech constitution one and only official name is the Czech Republic. Even Czech government cannot change it. Government can propagate "shortcut", but new government can easily revert this in two or three years. Commons should respect official name of country. --Ragimiri 20:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Czech constitution doesn't use "the Czech Republic" because Czech constitution was approved in Czech language only and use no English names. Czech constitution says nothing about foreign names of the country and of the state. :-) Btw., the Czechoslovak constitutions didn't contain the word "Československo" (not even "Czechoslovakia"). And many people can feel this artifically glued word as "horrible". Is it a valid reason to ignore and sabotage this country name? --ŠJů (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- According to Czech constitution one and only official name is the Czech Republic. Even Czech government cannot change it. Government can propagate "shortcut", but new government can easily revert this in two or three years. Commons should respect official name of country. --Ragimiri 20:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- I wrote it above: for all countries we use official English shortnames on Commons. I see any reason (excluding habits and emotions) to break this rule for Czechia... Wieralee (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- You are oficial representative of Commons, that you decised it? You should really read Guardian article about it. Nobody is using it, just a few officials that will be replaced in next elections. --Ragimiri 20:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- If the Commons comunity want to use official shortnames, so lets do it, nobody care. But dont do it in the case the shortname is strongly controversial. Maybe official, but strongly controversial. Official name of Lenin is not Lenin, but on Commons it is Lenin. So dont think that "official" is some dogma. Palu (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- However, the existing aberration of Czech-related categories (which deviate from the general rule to use the geographic names of countries, not the political ones) is also very controversial. We should not overvalue an irrational resistance of ignorant people. Official opinion of several most qualified institutions should be taken as more valid. --ŠJů (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Although I am also quite reserved about using the neologism Czechia, it has one big advantage. While Slovaks can call their categories 1998 in Slovakia or 1771 in Slovakia, Czechs can also have 1998 in the Czech Republic, but 1771 in the Czech Republic is no good, because the country was not a republic in that time. So it would be better to use such a name for the country that avoids using the form of the government. Sometimes it is avoided by the term "Czech lands" for pre-1919 era, but it would be better, if all the categories used consistent terminology. Similar problem is with general categories like Culture of the Czech Republic. Can images connected with Czech culture from the pre-republic times be added to such a category? Somebody might feel they can, others not. Neutral expression like "Czechia" could be a solution. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes? And for example prehistoric times were in Czechia or in Czech republic? I mean that not a single one. --Palu (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you are asking about by "yes?", but I will react to the second part of your contribution.
- There is no difference with how to deal about prehistory in the area of today's France and in the area of today's Czech Rep./Czechia. But while contributors have very easy task with building the categorization tree for the whole French history, they face problems with building the tree for Czech history, which is one (but not the only one) reason, why it is so unsystematic. Sometimes the pre-1919 pictures are added to the Czech Republic categories, although it is a non-sense, sometimes "Czech lands" categories are created, and so on. Accepting the form Czechia would solve the problem. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Palu: As explained above, the name of the country (meant as the land, the area) can be used also in retrospective (the area existed even when no people lived here) but the state as a regime, a national corporative organization, has its beginning. That's why we prefer generally the non-political country names for category titles. --ŠJů (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- As mentioned earlier, that problem extends beyond the Czech Republic. Most modern countries have had different names in the past, and we're not sure what to do about it. "Czechia" may partially solve that problem, but using a neologism for history isn't ideal either. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yes, any neologism would be not the ideal solution. That's why our geographical and political authorities prefer and confirmed the old and traditional word "Czechia" - even though it is a bit archaic by his Latin origin. Some real bizarre neologisms as "the Czechlands" or "the Czecho" (used or proposed sometimes by unknowing people in English-language discussions) were rejected, as well as use of the adjective Czech as a neologistic substantive for the country. "Czech lands" would be also acceptable and correct atemporal alternative (even though the 2 + 1/10 lands are not self-governing yet, they still exist), especially for historic contexts, but it is a bit obsolete now.
- "Czechia" was established not in the ancient nor in the medieval Latin but in the modern baroque 17th century Latin which use "cz" for "č" in this case, influenced by Slavic digraph orthographies – Cechia was also used, se la:Cechia). However, "Czech Latin" used by Czech scholars through many centuries used sometimes also diacritics: see Phytotoxicologiae čechicae tentamen, exhibens plantas venenatas Čechiae indigenas from 1837. Btw, the adjective is also in the name of the spider Dysdera czechica in the binomial biological nomenclature. And a 1605 book described an image: "Simon de Budecz poeta czechicus aetatis LII1 anno 1605". Czechia (Cechia, Čechia) and czechicus are really not neologisms, if we don't call 17th century by the "neo". --ŠJů (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Czechia is neologism, im sure. Older use is obsolete and abandoned many tens of years ago. The same story Čechia/Čechie - its only for poetry today and very old word. Čechia is dead and new use of Česko is revival neologism. And with another meaning - first Česko is "Bohemia or Bohemia and Moravia" and our neologism is "Czech republic". And - and this is very important difference - we are talking about the word Czechia and not Česko nor Čechia. Czechia is neologism which is old maybe 2 years. --Palu (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Czechia" was established not in the ancient nor in the medieval Latin but in the modern baroque 17th century Latin which use "cz" for "č" in this case, influenced by Slavic digraph orthographies – Cechia was also used, se la:Cechia). However, "Czech Latin" used by Czech scholars through many centuries used sometimes also diacritics: see Phytotoxicologiae čechicae tentamen, exhibens plantas venenatas Čechiae indigenas from 1837. Btw, the adjective is also in the name of the spider Dysdera czechica in the binomial biological nomenclature. And a 1605 book described an image: "Simon de Budecz poeta czechicus aetatis LII1 anno 1605". Czechia (Cechia, Čechia) and czechicus are really not neologisms, if we don't call 17th century by the "neo". --ŠJů (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the words Czechia and Česko were "revived" among "common people", but among learned people, it was used almost continuously, at least since 19th century. ("Common people" are those who confuse "Czechoslovakia", "Czechia" and "Bohemia" and have no deep knowledge about their distinctions, as well as the distinction between the country itself and its state-constitution form.) And the revival has several waves: around 1918 (some English-language sources were cited), before 1938 (by the Moravian bohemist František Trávníček), around 1968 (when Czechia became his first own republic) and around 1993 (and continuously since then). Said simply, each time when there were some discussions about Czechia, the word Czechia surfaced from the expert language to the common language. Btw., past 1989, many "forgotten" or "obsolete" words were revived, as "městys", "spolek", "pacht", "obecní úřad" etc. But obviously, none of them are neologisms. As well as "Česko" and "Čechia". --ŠJů (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- So if you want, it is not neologism. It if far times dead word which is resuscitated in the present. So it is like the neologism. --Palu (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Dead only among those people who had no need to use any geographical name of Czechia. And no need to distinguish Czechia from Czechoslovakia, Bohemia, Czech Republic or other related but different concepts. If I did notthing about the chemistry or mathematics, all chemical and mathematical concepts are "dead" for me. But not for learned people. Czech Republic is very young, but Czechia needed to be named even before 1969. The Czechoslovak legislature used the term "české kraje" (e.g. the act. no. 40/1956 Sb. contained words: "Tento zákon platí jen v českých krajích". "Czech regions" would be an interesting alternative to the older term "Czech lands". However, the word "Czechia" is more understandable, more systematical (compared to names of other countries) and more suitable to designate the entire country, not to emphasize its division. In this meaning, the word Czechia was used continuously in fact, at least since the late 19th century. --ŠJů (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, "Czech Republic" shouldn't be used at all for categories before 1992. Use "Czechoslovakia" instead. As far as I remember, there has never been an independent Czechia before 1992 (Austrian Empire then part of Czechoslovakia)... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Generally, "independence" is not the main criterion for sorting of photos. Bohemia, Moravia, Czechia, Slovakia etc. are distinctive and well defined areas, even though they was part of some broader unit in some periods. Bohemia, Moravia, Czechia or Slovakia have their continuity for centuries, while Czechoslovakia was a short-lived political patchwork. Czech Republic was established in 1969 but Czechia existed ages ago. Even the nowadays Czech Republic is not independent, it is part of EU as well as the 19th-century Czechia (Bohemian Kingdom and Moravian Margraviate) was part of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. --ŠJů (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't know that the Czech Republic wasn't independent because it's part of the EU. I'll have to ask to my Government whether we are an independent country or less because of the EU. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Try to study the Lisbon treaty instead of needless questions, EU is really a quasi-federation. Btw., the member republics of Czechoslovak federation were also formally "svrchované" (sovereign) according to the 1968 constitution law about federalization. And some limited federalization existed even before the formal federalization - e.g. 1950s nature conservation law was different for Czech regions (Czechia) and different for Slovak regions (Slovakia). --ŠJů (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't know that the Czech Republic wasn't independent because it's part of the EU. I'll have to ask to my Government whether we are an independent country or less because of the EU. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Generally, "independence" is not the main criterion for sorting of photos. Bohemia, Moravia, Czechia, Slovakia etc. are distinctive and well defined areas, even though they was part of some broader unit in some periods. Bohemia, Moravia, Czechia or Slovakia have their continuity for centuries, while Czechoslovakia was a short-lived political patchwork. Czech Republic was established in 1969 but Czechia existed ages ago. Even the nowadays Czech Republic is not independent, it is part of EU as well as the 19th-century Czechia (Bohemian Kingdom and Moravian Margraviate) was part of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. --ŠJů (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, "Czech Republic" shouldn't be used at all for categories before 1992. Use "Czechoslovakia" instead. As far as I remember, there has never been an independent Czechia before 1992 (Austrian Empire then part of Czechoslovakia)... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Dead only among those people who had no need to use any geographical name of Czechia. And no need to distinguish Czechia from Czechoslovakia, Bohemia, Czech Republic or other related but different concepts. If I did notthing about the chemistry or mathematics, all chemical and mathematical concepts are "dead" for me. But not for learned people. Czech Republic is very young, but Czechia needed to be named even before 1969. The Czechoslovak legislature used the term "české kraje" (e.g. the act. no. 40/1956 Sb. contained words: "Tento zákon platí jen v českých krajích". "Czech regions" would be an interesting alternative to the older term "Czech lands". However, the word "Czechia" is more understandable, more systematical (compared to names of other countries) and more suitable to designate the entire country, not to emphasize its division. In this meaning, the word Czechia was used continuously in fact, at least since the late 19th century. --ŠJů (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- So if you want, it is not neologism. It if far times dead word which is resuscitated in the present. So it is like the neologism. --Palu (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the words Czechia and Česko were "revived" among "common people", but among learned people, it was used almost continuously, at least since 19th century. ("Common people" are those who confuse "Czechoslovakia", "Czechia" and "Bohemia" and have no deep knowledge about their distinctions, as well as the distinction between the country itself and its state-constitution form.) And the revival has several waves: around 1918 (some English-language sources were cited), before 1938 (by the Moravian bohemist František Trávníček), around 1968 (when Czechia became his first own republic) and around 1993 (and continuously since then). Said simply, each time when there were some discussions about Czechia, the word Czechia surfaced from the expert language to the common language. Btw., past 1989, many "forgotten" or "obsolete" words were revived, as "městys", "spolek", "pacht", "obecní úřad" etc. But obviously, none of them are neologisms. As well as "Česko" and "Čechia". --ŠJů (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Use "Czech Republic" for anything post-Velvet Divorce. "Czechia" doesn't have significant English use; we routinely speak of it as the "Czech Republic", and when we're not using circumlocutions like "the region that's now the Czech Republic", we typically use the historic regional names, e.g. Bohemia and Moravia. I'd suggest that categories for this part of the world, when they need to reflect something other than the current name, use instead "X in Bohemia and Moravia", or just "X in Bohemia" and "X in Moravia" if you'd rather not have them use the same categories. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- However, the post-divorce Czech Republic is legally and territorially identical with the pre-divorce Czech Republic existing since 1969, within the federation. And the territory (the country itself) of Czechia had its definite identity continuously before Czechoslovakia was federalized. The adjective "Czech" was undoubtedly derrived from the substantive name of the country. Only an ignorant person can use the derived adjective without recognition of the original substantive name. Should be the people who ignored Czechia before 1969 or even before 1993 really the main benchmark of the "significant English use"? We need firstly timeless geographical names for countries, if possible independent on transitory political regimes and their political names. When we categorize people and places, atemporal or long-standing geographical units are more proper as the basic level of modular categorization. When a person is from Bohemia, Moravia, Czechia or Slovakia or a village or a city is in Bohemia, Moravia, Czechia or Slovakia, it can apply for more periods of history, even for the period of Bohemian Kingdom within various empires (Holy Roman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire), even for Czechoslovakia in various periods (land system, regions, a federation), even for the Protectorate of B&M, even for the sovereign Czech Republic, even for the Czech Republic under EU. --ŠJů (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: More out of curiosity than argument: The "Czech" in "Czech Republic" necessarily comes from Czechia not Čechy? I always figured Moravians were being subsumed into the adjective. Moravia & Silesia were (at times) part of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown (Země Koruny české) and the Czech Lands (České země), right? Or maybe I've misunderstood you. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: The Czech adjective "český" is really ambiguous, it is homonymous for "Čechy" and for "Česko" (Czechia including Moravia and Czech Silesia). Note that there is "Czech Silesia" (not "Bohemian Silesia"), Bohemian Crown (not Czech Crown) and Czech Lands (not Bohemian Lands). Polish language has even identical word for "Čechy" and "Česko". However, the Latin and English word for "Čechy" is undoubtedly "Bohemia" and the adjective "Bohemian". It is homonymous with the adjective related to the common word "bohemianism" but we need to be reconciled to it, it's a historical language fact (Bohemia is derived from the Celtic tribe of Boii, "bohemianism" probably from ex-Bohemian Gypsies, none of the two meanings has original relation to Slavic Czechs. Yes, the word Czechia is originally derived from Čechy and the oldiest ocurrences used the word Czechia really for Bohemia. However, even though the meaning of the words "Czechia" and "Česko" a bit drifted, the adjective "Czech" is utterly undoubtedly derived from the word Czechia (although maybe in both meanings). Generally, Moravian dialects are very various but even though they have some common characteristics or elements, they are considered as dialects of the Czech language (and the "artificial" uniform standard Czech language was codified also by Moravian linguists). Differences between Moravian dialects is so big that they can be hardly considered as a "Moravian language" together. The one tenth of Silesia is a bit different case: Silesian language has aspiration to be considered as a separate language (even though its dialects mix Polish, Czech and German) and is perceived (by Czechs) rather as a dialect of Polish than a dialect of Czech, even though Lach dialects are considered oficially rather as Silesian dialects of the Czech language. Nowadays, Czechia can be defined as the area of the Czech Republic or the home area of the Czech language in all its variants, as well as the area of Lands of the Bohemian Crown from the last Austro-Hungarian period. However, both Lusatias and the rest of Silesia belonged also under the Bohemian Crown once, but they are not count under "Czechia" – the modern historiography mentions them as "vedlejší" (side, secondary) lands of the Bohemian Crown, while Moravian Margraviate is mentioned as an integral and hereditary part of the Bohemian Kingdom (but not of Bohemia). --ŠJů (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: Thanks, very interesting! If we use Category:History of Czechia do we still have a problem? Will Lusatias and the rest of Silesia be included? They were historically part of Czechia, but no longer are? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Lusatias and Polish (Prussian) Silesia belonged to the Bohemian Crown long ago, but hardly can be considered as parts of Czechia. Nowadays, Czechia is understood unambiguously as Česko, i.e. area of the current Czech Republic (which is roughly identical with the area of the 3 (exactly 2 + 1/10) Czech lands as known since 1742, when most of Silesia became part of Prussia (see War of the Austrian Succession). The core "Czechia" can be roughly conceived as the home area of the Czech language (even though German prevailed in Sudetenland before 1945 expulsion). "Czech lands" and "Czechia" are almost synonymic terms, but "Czech lands" has more historical undertone, while "Czechia" is mistakenly considered as a 1990s neologism (especially by people who never heard and never talked about Czechia before 1993) and is still not videly used among unknowing people. That's the main problem, there is any resistance to the words "Czechia" and "Česko". But the words are irreplaceable because "Czech Republic" is not a synonyme, there was no Czech Republic before 1969. The word "Czechia" can be applied even retrospectively for the area, "Czech Republic" can not. Who has a bit of grammatical sense, can feel that "Czecho-" in the word Czechoslovakia is obviously derived from Czechia and Slovakia just as Austro-Hungarian Empire is derived from Austria-Hungary and Anglo-Saxons are derived from Anglia and Saxony. The joining adjective and adverbial grammatical ending "-o" is known in many languages influenced by Greek and Latin. It is a bit different from the Czech substantive ending -o" (-sko, -cko in Česko, Polsko, Německo), which is an analogy of the English ending "-ness". "-ity" or "-land" or the Latin "-ia", even though it is also adverbial ending in essence. --ŠJů (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that, but Czechia has a different meaning today than it did in the past, no? Could Category:Czechia in the 1630s include files that might also be in Category:History of Silesia or not? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- It could be Category:Bohemia in the 1630s and also for Moravia if we want to be correct. Gryffindor (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Bohemia in the 1630s and Category:Moravia in the 1630s is surely correct. Seen from the today's historiographic view, they can be retrospectively subsumed under "Czechia" (but surely not "Czech Republic"). As regards Silesia, I would not categorize all Silesian categories under Czech categories (as well as Lusatias or Carinthia). But rather under Czechia or Czech lands than under the Czech Republic. Because Czech Silesia (and Austrian Silesia) has not specific categories of history by year, historical images can be categorized paralelly under both the Czech history and the Silesian history by year. --ŠJů (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- It could be Category:Bohemia in the 1630s and also for Moravia if we want to be correct. Gryffindor (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely support the usage of Czechia, Czechia has more than 1200 years old history with only a very short period being associated with the republican political system. The history of Czechia is thus much longer than that of the Czech Republic. Czechia is a short (geographic) name, which is independent of time and changes in forms of state and political regimes on its territory. As such, it can be used for our country in both historical and contemporary contexts. The Czech Republic is simply nothing more than the name of the current state formation on the territory of Czechia. It is important to know that CZECHIA has been the official English equivalent of ČESKO since the very beginning of modern Czech statehood and it is appropriate to use this term just as the one-word equivalents of Česko are used in other languages. Insufficient dissemination (particularly) of the English one-word term for Česko has been caused by the representatives and professional promoters of the new Czech state (often neither professional nor promoters), who badly underestimated the importance of the English one-word name in the international field. The allegation that Czechia "has not caught on" in the world and so "let us forget it and accept the widespread Czech" (such talk can sometimes be heard in political and economic circles) is again nothing but confusion of cause and effect. Those who are in a position to do something have done nothing; they only try to hide their own incompetence and shift the blame on "adverse circumstances" Attaching nice article by our leading expert on this field http://www.radio.cz/en/section/letter/from-bohemia-to-czechia .Helveticus96 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- You are speaking about land which was named Czech kingdom for 1200 years. The name "Czechia" is old maybe few months. I understand what you mean, but what i want to say: the name Czechia is neologism which is inopportune in the same way like "Czech republic" (because its nowhere used, very young neologism) - with one more problem - its controversial. Palu (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe, the word Czechia is still unfamiliar to uneducated people but surely not a neologism. If the "neo" should not mean baroque times or 19th century when the word appeared. Btw., the kingdom was Bohemian, named after Bohemia, the associated lands were (and are) Czech, which is an adjetive derrived from Czechs and Czechia (Moravia is Czech but not Bohemian). "Czech kingdom" is very unusual name. --ŠJů (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I support the use of Czechia going forward as it is the official short form name of the country and does not cause a conflict with another sovereign state (such as Dominica/Dominican Republic or the two Congos). Czechia has steadily been replacing Czech Republic in sources since the official adoption of the name. There is no reason for categories about Czechia to retain the long form name at this point, any more than Slovak Republic or any other country. Josh (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, I think that would be the easiest solution. And use "Bohemia" and "Moravia" for history until 1918. Gryffindor (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- "Bohemia" can be used for Bohemia in all its periods, "Moravia" for Moravia (not only until 1918, Bohemia and Moravia sill exist). And Czechia can be used as umbrella and timeless name for Czechia in all its periods, republican as well as monarchist or occupation, while temporary power structures can be named by their specific names. Bohemia, Moravia as well as Czechia or Silesia have their timeless national identities, unlike Czechoslovakia which didn't exist before 1918 nor past 1992. Generally, todays countries and nations are used also for retrospective categorization (Italy, Germany, Romania...). But really countries, not passing state regimes and forms. And historical parts with their own national identity should have their own subcategories for some items. --ŠJů (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
But what about rejoin Slovakia and recreate Czekoslovakia, just to stop all those problems? 
that apart, something must be done because we have been discussing this topic for more than 6 months. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Could we wrap up this discussion? There are many good reasons to move to Category:Czechia, and no good reasons except a general "people dont like changes" against it. Eventually one could keep Category:Czech Republic as a subcategory, like Category:Czechoslovakia, but I doubt that would be very useful. --Joostik (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid, it will take several years to ripen this question. Nobody has a courage to decide it definitively. (Btw., to Blackcat: the restoration of Czechoslovakia would not solve the problem how name the categories for Czechia and for Slovakia – both these countries existed a long time before Czechoslovakia and existed during the whole period of Czechoslovakia, even though they were never republics before 1969.) --ŠJů (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- The problem, Joostik, is that Czech Republic is the official assessed esonym in English (and also in my language it's Repubblica Ceca, not Cechia, in French language is République tchèque). While it might be ok to use Czechia for the categories related to cultural topics (i.e. Antonín Dvořák, who was a Czech composer - well, apart that he was an Austro-Hungarian national like Freud - but not from a non-existent Czech Republic) we must not use it for those related to the administrative entity known as "Czech Republic", thus politicians, sportspeople after 1994, and so on. You can't have "Czechia" covering all aspects related to the Czech Republic. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- The fact that the full oficial name of the republic (distinguish the republic from the country itself) is "officially assessed" (by who?) doesn't mean that the name of the country itself is not asessed and cannot be used as timeless geographical name of the country (area of the republic) and as the short name of the republic. Most of republics and kingdoms have their assessed full political names, but are called by their short and timeless country names commonly. Btw. "Austro-Hungarian nationality" is a pure nonsense, Austria-Hungary was a multinational empire, and emperors explicitly respected this fact. The full name of any republic or kingdom is necessary for items which have a close relation to the specific state form. However, most of Commons items are categorized geographicaly by country, i.e. changes of the constitutional power form are irrelevant, as far as Czechia has its country for centuries, while their state form varied. Even constitution of Czech Republic in 1969 or dissolution of Czechoslovakia (strictly, of the last form of Czechoslovak Republic) changed nothing on the existence and identity of Czechia - as well as Germany or Italy existed as countries even in those times, when they were not unified under a common state. -- ŠJů (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- ŠJů, as long as the official esonym in English is "Czech Republic" we must use it, as well as the assessed esonym for the USSR was Soviet Union, not Union of Sovietic Socialist Republics. Whatever you call yourself is irrelevant as long as it's not intersubjectively accepted and assessed. One day probabily the esonym "Czechia" will enter into the common language. For now Czechia is, for everyone who uses English as lingua franca the Czech Republic. It's not the case to raise on Commons a cultural battle. Commons follows the uses, doesn't anticipate it or engages in avant-garde battles for changing the language. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- The fact that the full oficial name of the republic (distinguish the republic from the country itself) is "officially assessed" (by who?) doesn't mean that the name of the country itself is not asessed and cannot be used as timeless geographical name of the country (area of the republic) and as the short name of the republic. Most of republics and kingdoms have their assessed full political names, but are called by their short and timeless country names commonly. Btw. "Austro-Hungarian nationality" is a pure nonsense, Austria-Hungary was a multinational empire, and emperors explicitly respected this fact. The full name of any republic or kingdom is necessary for items which have a close relation to the specific state form. However, most of Commons items are categorized geographicaly by country, i.e. changes of the constitutional power form are irrelevant, as far as Czechia has its country for centuries, while their state form varied. Even constitution of Czech Republic in 1969 or dissolution of Czechoslovakia (strictly, of the last form of Czechoslovak Republic) changed nothing on the existence and identity of Czechia - as well as Germany or Italy existed as countries even in those times, when they were not unified under a common state. -- ŠJů (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- The problem, Joostik, is that Czech Republic is the official assessed esonym in English (and also in my language it's Repubblica Ceca, not Cechia, in French language is République tchèque). While it might be ok to use Czechia for the categories related to cultural topics (i.e. Antonín Dvořák, who was a Czech composer - well, apart that he was an Austro-Hungarian national like Freud - but not from a non-existent Czech Republic) we must not use it for those related to the administrative entity known as "Czech Republic", thus politicians, sportspeople after 1994, and so on. You can't have "Czechia" covering all aspects related to the Czech Republic. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid, it will take several years to ripen this question. Nobody has a courage to decide it definitively. (Btw., to Blackcat: the restoration of Czechoslovakia would not solve the problem how name the categories for Czechia and for Slovakia – both these countries existed a long time before Czechoslovakia and existed during the whole period of Czechoslovakia, even though they were never republics before 1969.) --ŠJů (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Blackcat: Czechia is the country, Czech Republic is a republic ruling the country. Although a country name is often used to name a sovereign corporation (a state) and the name of the state is used to name the country itself, the distinction between the geographically-ethnographical subject and the political subject is indisputable. As Commons categorization prefers geographical names to the political names, this principle should be kept even for the case that the correct and official geographical name is not very known among uneducated or ignorant people. Many unacquainted people in the world maybe didn't register dissolution of Czechoslovakia or didn't understand distinction between Czechoslovakia and Czechia, but it is also no reason to follow such belated and confused majority and ignore this distinction. "Czech Republic" is absolutely inappropriate and unusable especially for pre-1969 Czechia. Commons categorization should be based rather on long-standing geographical subjects (as countries) rather than on transitory political forms. Similarily, Catolonia or Crimea or Kosovo have their long-standing clear identity independently on the current political conflicts. Their geographical names ar long-standing and politically neutral, that's why we prefer them. Czechia has (within monarchic Czech lands and republican Czechoslovakia) its longstanding identity which existed for centuries, long before the Czech Republic (while Czechoslovakia or Soviet Union were utilitarian conglomerates which arised and vanished with their republics - there existed no Czechoslovakia before 1918 nor past 1992, there existed no country of "Sovietia" ever). --ŠJů (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I'm afraid, the shift to unification to the geographical name can raise a wave of strong resistance, and the backward change to Czech Republic can be also very controversial (and absurd and disrupting especially for historical items). IMHO only the first of the two possibilities is promising and defensible for the future, but its implementation needs big courage and readiness - and maybe also still some time to keep the change to become more ripe. --ŠJů (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: , the problem with the Czech Republic is that substantially it has never been an independent country until 1993 (and, as a matter of fact, the line between "Czech" and "Czechoslovak" is very blurred. Mucha was Czech but a strong promoter of Czechoslovakia for example. Sigmund Freud was technically Czech but we consider him Austrian); that said, in English anything related to the current Czech Republic pre-1918 is called "Bohemian". If we want to make it a matter of Czech nationalism fine, but the term is not assessed in historiography and geography in English language pre 20th century. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Blackcat: As i wrote, while Czechia has its long-standing historical identity within various state forms, since the Middle Ages, Czech Republic is very young political form. That's why the category tree of Czechia should be named rather after Czechia than after the Czech Republic. Czechia in the form of Czech Lands was relatively independent, even it was a member of various empires during the time. Bohemia is only one part of Czechia. Czechia consists of Bohemia, Moravia and small part of Silesia (affilation of Silesia is more weak and was changed during the War of the Austrian Succession, but Bohemia and Moravia are stable and agelong integral parts of Czechia. To confuse Czechia with Bohemia is unacceptable especially past this long discussion where it was many times explicitly explained. The line between "Czech" and "Czechoslovak" is absolutely not blurred, as well as the distinction between Bohemia and Czechia is not. I can understand that a foreigner needs not to be acquainted with all the facts, but ignorance of unknowing people should be surelly not the final clue for us. --ŠJů (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: I'm starting to see duplicate categories being created or used because people don't know that there's a dispute over this. We need to resolve this. As far as I know, "Czech Republic" is the standard name in English, which is the standard we use to name categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Common-sense suggestion: we can use "Czech Republic" for every administrative-official related content and Czechia for the rest. Could be a fair deal? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Everything in "Czech Republic" should just be moved to "Czechia". It's not "Slovak Republic" either but "Slovakia. Gryffindor (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- There may be a valid argument to be made in favour of Czechia, but I don't think this is it. "Slovak Republic" yields more google results than "Czechia" does. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- However, Slovak Republic is not identical with Slovakia and Czech Republic is not identical with Czechia. The countries existed for centuries (even though not always as a separate state), the republics are young. That's the main problem. We should prefer timeless names of countries for categorization. --ŠJů (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that "Czechia" is the easy and obvious solution to the cultural and historical continuity of the Czech people and country while under many different political regimes (Austria-Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, etc.) Czech lands is ridiculous when we have an easy and officially sanctioned alternative. Political and governmental issues should be categorised under the respective political regime. So Edvard Beneš would not be in a category called Politicians of Czechia or something silly like that. Catrìona (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Catrìona: Edvard Beneš really was from Czechia and he was Czech politician, although he represented the whole Czechoslovakia. Similarly Gustáv Husák or Vasil Biľak were Slovak politicians (of Czechoslovakia). To categorize Edvard Beneš, Comenius or T. G. Masaryk by "from Czechia" or "of Czechia" is not silly. What is silly is to categorize them "of the Czech Republic" because there existed no Czech Republic before 1969. --ŠJů (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Some months ago I tried to propose a common sense solution that involved a fair compromise. I also would like to add, shouldn't it be clear, that still insisting for renaming the whole tree in "Czechia" is not a common sense solution, is a cul-de-sac that will never find consensus, thus let me retry, because this discussion is starting to take its toll after almost 2 years.
- the official exonym in English of Česko is Czech Republic. Czechia is only the alternative, short name (it's not me, it's the UN that say so). I too would like to write Italia but my country has an exonym in English which is Italy so I respect it because here on Commons we use as convention to adopt the official exonym in English of the current sovereign countries.
- the country is young, existing as sovereign state since 1993
- because of the above:
- the mother category keeps on being Czech Republic as the official exonym says;
- categories related to culture (art, music, literature) could be Xxx of/from Czechia;
- categories related to sports are only Xxx of/from the Czech Republic or Xxx of/from Czechoslovakia or both (in case of sportspeople that represented both countries i.e. Tomáš Skuhravý)
- categories related to people are from Czechia (where necessary as child categories of People of Czechoslovakia for the Czechs and the Slovaks from 1918 to 1993) until XX century and from the Czech Republic from 21st-century onward.
Hope that this helps to reach an end because a debate like this cannot last almost 2 years. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ad 1) Czechia is the country itself, as a geographical entity. Czech Republic is the current political subject in Czechia. Political subjects (states) are commonly called by geographical names of the countries but that doesn't mean that the concepts are identical. Czech Republic is an exonym for Česká republika, Czechia is an exonym for Česko. (Regarding your example, Italy is an exonyme for Italia, Italian Republic is an exonyme for Repubblica italiana. The geographical and ethnographical entity of Italy has some relation to the political entity of Italian Republic, but the relation is not absolute identity of the two concepts, eg. Kingdom of Italy can be also called by the short geographical name of "Italy", but the present political name "Italian Republic" is not applicable for it.). Czechs were continuously Czechs and Czechia was continuously Czechia, independently on the fact what kind of state regime and what specific federation or administrative organization was applied to Czechia in various periods of the history. Core Czech lands had their common and continuous identity through centuries. Maybe, Italy is a bit different case, it has some kind of their national identity before 1861 but never a common statehood. However, Italy or Germany were perceived as countries (in national sense) even in the periods before their political unification in the second half of the 19th century. As i know, English language has no better exonyme for Czechia in the apolitical, geographical, timeless sense. For that meaning, the word Czechia i used since 19th century. Btw., every intelligent user of English language feels that the name of the Czech Republic is derived from any primary substantive name of the country, as well as all similar names of various republics.
- Ad 2] The country of Czechia is not young, it existed countinuously since medieval times. What is young is the Czech Republic, it exists since 1969 and was independent in 1993–2004 (EU is de facto a federation similarly as Czechoslovakia was: also the 1968 Czechoslovak Federation Constitutional Act defined both member republics as sovereign states, as well as EU declares formal sovereignity of their members).
- Ad 3) For the consistency of Commons categorization system, especially toward historical items and pre-1969 and timeless facts, geographical names of stable countries should be preferred to short-lived political names of short-lived political entities (most of European countries changed from monarchies to republics, keeping their national identity). However, this principle is more acute in category trees related to the history (history by year, categories of personalities etc.) and less acute for categories used mainly for new items and photographs. As a compromise, we can tolerate (for now) the "republican" political name in such category trees where such a name dosn't cause absurd anachronisms. For the future, the geographical name of the country should be used, as for all other countries which have such a timeless apolitical name. --ŠJů (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: , you're not helping the discussion. I don't care if there was something called "Czechia" before. Even before 1861 there was something called "Italy" but was not an administrative entity. Italy as sovereign country exists since 1861, the Czech Republic is a sovereign country since 1993. The current official exonym in English of your country is Czech Republic, deal with it. You cannot demand to baptize everything from 1992 onward as Czechia. As you've seen, you have no consensus to do. I offered a compromise. Whatever comes before the independence of the Czech Republic refers to Czechia except for those aspects where country of citizenship prevails over ethnic nationality (ie sports, official politics roles and so on). Whatever comes later is related to the Czech Republic. Is out of question to name everything "Czechia", and you should have noticed by now. That apart, you can petition the UN for they change the Czech Republic's official English exonym. Please, I'm sick and tired of nationalist issues, and there's no room on Commons for these matters. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
PS and Czechia is the country itself, as a geographical entity. Czech Republic is the current political subject in Czechia.. No. A country is what their political boundaries define. You're confusing a "nation" with a "country". Even Italy had boundaries sometimes wider, other times narrower than what we thought it should have been. The Austrian-Hungarian empire created a mess in our Northern regions because of that, and left unsolved problems with local language minorities.
PPSS 1969 is not a watershed, since the Czech Republic became independent in 1994. Unless Antonín Panenka became European champion playing for the Czech national team?
- @ŠJů: , you're not helping the discussion. I don't care if there was something called "Czechia" before. Even before 1861 there was something called "Italy" but was not an administrative entity. Italy as sovereign country exists since 1861, the Czech Republic is a sovereign country since 1993. The current official exonym in English of your country is Czech Republic, deal with it. You cannot demand to baptize everything from 1992 onward as Czechia. As you've seen, you have no consensus to do. I offered a compromise. Whatever comes before the independence of the Czech Republic refers to Czechia except for those aspects where country of citizenship prevails over ethnic nationality (ie sports, official politics roles and so on). Whatever comes later is related to the Czech Republic. Is out of question to name everything "Czechia", and you should have noticed by now. That apart, you can petition the UN for they change the Czech Republic's official English exonym. Please, I'm sick and tired of nationalist issues, and there's no room on Commons for these matters. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- If you "don't care" about reality and real identity of countries, we need not to adapt to your ignorance. Geographical categorization of Commons should come out of stable and long-standing entities, not of fleeting and artificial ones. That's why we generally prefer names of countries to names of republics, kingdoms and other regimes or "administrative units". Republics and kingdoms are arising and vanishing, inhabitants are coming, leaving or become extinct, while the country itself remains. Bohemia and Moravia were always parts of Czechia and Czechia was always a country in Europe (always = since the medieval times), independently on the fact which of them have in which moment its separate state, land assembly or was united with some other country. "Czech Republic" (Česká republika) is a name of a political entity which existed since 1969, while Czechia (Česko) is a timeless name of the country itself, which existed continuously within a kingdom, within a common state with Slovakia, with a protectorate as well as within the republics. A writer from Czechia was always from Czechia and a city in Czechia was always in Czechia, independently on the fact which state formations existed in Czechia during their duration. Similarly, if we categorize people or places from Italy, we need not to distinguish who of them experienced Italian kingdom and who of them some of Italian republics or ununified Italy. To categorize them by transitory political entities would be very impractical and insuitable. Overwhelming majority of countries have their categories by country, not by their today's constitutional form or regime. The proposal to made Czech categories analogous to categories of other countries was motivated besides other things by the need for continuity and timelessness of geographical and national categories. You propose to deepen and expand the problems, not to solve them. Btw., Czech Republic is named after Czechia, as well as French Republic is named after France and Kingdom of Belgium is named after Belgium. Czechia was surely not "invented" nor created with federation or dissolution of Czechoslovakia. Naturally, for some items we need categories of Bohemia, Moravia, Lusatia or Silesia, Czechoslovakia or Austrian Empire, and the categorization tree should reflect a hierarchy and other relations of such items. Btw., nation is the people which live in the country and state is a power entity which rules the country. Do not confuse nation or state with the country.
- I can paraphrase you: "I'm sick and tired of political and administrative issues, and there's no room on Commons for these matters." Such a proclamation is just as absurd and nonsense as your, but we use geographical, politically neutral names of categories for most of countries, and is very unpracticall to impractical and pointless to deviate from this convention just in case of Czechia, and just for ignorance of some people who never heard about Czechia and nothing know about Czechia. The Czech Republic exists since 1 January 1969 and is legally identical with the current Czech Republic: the current constitution of the Czech Republic was approved by its own parliament in 1992. And even unitary Czechoslovakia before 1969 federalization was defined as a republic of two brotherly nations and two countries, as also its name indicates. Naturally, even a federalization and creation of two national republics was not a creation of Czechia and Slovakia: the countries existed continously, only their constitutional form a bit changed. Czech sportsman was always Czech sportsman and Slovak sportsman was always Slovak sportsmen, no matter he represents a federation, his country, his home town or a foreign team. Antonín Panenka was undoubtedly a Czech, as well as Alexander Dubček was undoubtedly a Slovak, although they both represents Czechoslovakia in some times. Some people can have mixed nationality, just as some people can have double or triple citizenship or more home countries. --ŠJů (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment It is almost three years, but nothing changes. Simply “Czechia” failed to come to wider use - see Google Trends or media ([10] [11]). Using both “Czechia” and “Czech Republic” is confusing for Commons users. A final decision needs to be taken. Jklamo (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Conclusion: Czechia has remained a nice try that never grasped or catched the public. The official exonym in English keeps on being Czech Republic and this discussion has lasted too much. It can be submitted in 10 years from now if something will have changed meanwhile. This CfD demanded too much, it should have been about renaming to "Czechia" only those items related to non-administrative aspects of the life of the country (like ie culture, literature, music, and so on). Of course was not thinkable to extend the name "Czechia" to anything related to the Czech Republic. CLOSED for lack of any consent to rename to Czechia. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gryffindor, Themightyquill, Mormegil, Wieralee, Palu, Juandev, Jklamo, Ragimiri, Jan.Kamenicek, and Blackcat: @Nyttend, Helveticus96, Joostik, Auntof6, and Buidhe: The Neverending Story continues at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Products of the Czech Republic. --ŠJů (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Lighting of the Eiffel Tower is copyrighted; and since it is the subject of these photos, it does not even account for de minimis I'll have to check my program 🍺💲🚬 15:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The files themselves are copyrighted, so these need to be nominated first. If these are deleted then we can delete this category. Otherwise Keep this category for now. epicgenius (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The images are:
- File:Eiffel tower illuminated in colors of French Tricolour in memory of the victims of November 2015 Paris attacks. Wesern Europe, France, Paris, November 18, 2015.jpg
- File:Eiffel Tower Paris honor our victims "Fluctuat Nec Mergitur" (22707193477).jpg
- File:Eiffel Tower Paris honor our victims (22707199217).jpg
- File:La Tour Eiffel sous nos couleurs.jpg
- File:The Eiffel Tower lit up in French colours after the November 2015 Paris attacks.jpg
- File:Tour Eiffel Nov 2015 centre.jpg
- File:Tour Eiffel Nov 2015 inferieur.jpg
- File:Tour Eiffel Nov 2015 paysage.jpg
- File:Tour Eiffel Nov 2015.jpg
epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I have nominated the above mentioned media for deletion.
I'll have to check my program 🍺💲🚬 16:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)- Delete There is only one file in the category. The file can be moved to this category's parent categories before the file is deleted. epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it probably makes sense to upmerge the existing file to related parent categories and delete this one. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Bender Bending Rodríguez and Epicgenius: Note that images were each deleted then undeleted. If they are going to stay, there's no reason to delete the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC) @Canopus Grandiflora: - Themightyquill (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done: kept. --ƏXPLICIT 01:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Move to its original name at Category:Gas stations in British Columbia, as the common term in Canada is 'gas station', not 'petrol station'. The category was moved without discussion in 2015, ostensibly for "harmonization, to match with upper categories". Mindmatrix 21:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- This is an area where the commons can be annoyingly inconsistent. Streetcars are called streetcars, here in Toronto, where we have the largest fleet of streetcars in North America. They are called streetcars in most other places in North America, too. But, at some point, a decision was made that all streetcar-like vehicles would be called "trams", even those here in Toronto.
But, on the other hand, the technology to lift a caisson full of water, from one level to another -- called a "lift-lock" here in Canada, is called a "boatlift" in the UK, a "shiplift" in other parts of the anglosphere, and a "schiff-mumble" in Germany. Following a discussion, years ago, those who favoured the German name were allowed to keep that name for the categories for the devices in Germany. IMO, neither the name "boatlift" or "shiplift" should be used, because the terms have multiple meanings. They are both also used for cranes used to lift vessels out of the water, for maintenance, or storage.
Calling streetcars trams bugs me. Calling these stations petrol stations doesn't. Geo Swan (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: To be fair, Wieralee did start Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/04/Category:Gas stations in the United States before making this change, but it received no response at all during the month the discussion was open. Wieralee moved that category to "Petrol stations in the United States" but Infrogmation quickly moved it back. Nyttend has frequently cited "Gas stations in the United States" as a valid example of differences in English variant use in other discussions: Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/06/Category:Visitor centres in the United States, Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Train stations. Harmonization is great, but it can produce problems as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support, move it back; it's one thing to harmonise an isolated category when it differs from the rest (e.g. "Cats in France, Cats in Germany, Felis domesticus in Belgium"), but when you have a group of categories that are together consistent, there's no reason to have one of them differ from the rest, so this needs to be part of the Gas stations in Canada tree. And don't move an isolated category or a group of categories away from national usage, which is what happened here. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support, leaving this page as a redirect. Note that the parent category here is Category:Gas stations in Canada by province or territory, but the cat above that is Category:Petrol stations in Canada: shouldn't that be renamed along with these? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I just noticed that the english wikipedia article is at en:Filling station. Is that neutral enough that it would be acceptable in both languages, and we could move this whole tree to Category:Filling stations in XXX ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Wieralee, Mindmatrix, Geo Swan, Nyttend, and Auntof6: Thoughts on Category:Filling stations as a consistent alternative? - Themightyquill (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Works for me. Geo Swan (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- OK. Wieralee (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I would use Category:Filling stations as a container for the various types of stations, including Category:Petrol stations/gas stations, boat fuelling stations, aviation fuelling stations, Category:Electric vehicle charging stations, Category:Hydrogen stations, Category:Coaling stations, etc. Of course, for good measure what I just described seems to be captured by Category:Fueling stations, so either use a {{Category redirect}} from Filling stations to Fueling stations, or move the latter to the former (automatically generating a redirect in the process). I oppose a move of the petrol/gas station categories to filling/fuelling categories, as the latter is a broader concept than the former. (Aside: the Wikipedia article en:Fuelling station is about coaling stations.) Mindmatrix 23:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Wieralee, Mindmatrix, Geo Swan, Nyttend, and Auntof6: Thoughts on Category:Filling stations as a consistent alternative? - Themightyquill (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I just noticed that the english wikipedia article is at en:Filling station. Is that neutral enough that it would be acceptable in both languages, and we could move this whole tree to Category:Filling stations in XXX ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support move back to more common usage in the country covered. Efforts for consistency in categorization should not be at the expense of usability. Most media would likely be uploaded by locals, and locals would be more likely to caption and look for according to the names they are familiar with. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support, move it back. While this editor cannot speak for the local term used in British Columbia, the vast majority of their neighbors in the country to the south wouldn't have a clue what a "petrol station" or a "filling station" is. Therefore, if "gas station" is the common local terminology, then "Gas stations in. . ." it should be--even if it doesn't "harminize". An Errant Knight (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support: From what I can gather, Canadians prefer the terms "gas/gasoline" and "gas station" over "petrol" and "petrol station". A lot of relevant signage I've seen just perusing images here on the Commons backs up this claim as well. As such, I support making "Gas stations in British Columbia" the primary category name. Ponderosapine210 (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Closed, Moved back per years of discussion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to its original name at Category:Gas stations in Alberta, as the common term in Canada is 'gas station', not 'petrol station'. The category was moved without discussion in 2015, ostensibly for "harmonization, to match with upper categories". Mindmatrix 21:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support, leaving this page as a redirect. Note that the parent category here is Category:Gas stations in Canada by province or territory, but the cat above that is Category:Petrol stations in Canada: shouldn't that be renamed along with these? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support: From what I can gather, Canadians prefer the terms "gas/gasoline" and "gas station" over "petrol" and "petrol station". A lot of relevant signage I've seen just perusing images here on the Commons backs up this claim as well. As such, I support making "Gas stations in Alberta" the primary category name. Ponderosapine210 (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Closed, Moved back per discussion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Requesting speedy delete. This category is redundant, already exist a similar cat already populated -> Category:Tesla vehicles by country.--Mariordo (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Automobiles are only one type of vehicle. Does Tesla make other types such as vans, trucks, etc.? If they make only automobiles, then the categories should probably use the term "automobiles" instead of "vehicles". If they make other types, then we probably need both. In either case, all the subcategories should be organized along the same lines. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- when you're in category "tesla automobiles" there should be such subcategory, as well in "automobiles by brand by country". It's common situation in so many cases. If this category will be deleted, tesla automobiles may be found only in vehicles caregories, but not in automobiles. Stolbovsky (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Stolbovsky: Auntof6 has suggested deleting the vehicles category and leaving the automobiles category, assuming Tesla makes no vans or trucks. Would that be acceptable to you? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- when you're in category "tesla automobiles" there should be such subcategory, as well in "automobiles by brand by country". It's common situation in so many cases. If this category will be deleted, tesla automobiles may be found only in vehicles caregories, but not in automobiles. Stolbovsky (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Tesla also makes heavy duty trucks (ie. the Semi truck; an 18-wheeler tractor unit) -- 70.51.201.106 04:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- You're right - we have Category:Tesla Semi. -I'd suggest we leave things as they are and close discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Two years no objections. The result was keep Estopedist1 (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to its original name at Category:Gas stations in Saskatchewan, as the common term in Canada is 'gas station', not 'petrol station'. The category was moved without discussion in 2015, ostensibly for "harmonization, to match with upper categories". Mindmatrix 21:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support, leaving this page as a redirect. Note that the parent category here is Category:Gas stations in Canada by province or territory, but the cat above that is Category:Petrol stations in Canada: shouldn't that be renamed along with these? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support: From what I can gather, Canadians prefer the terms "gas/gasoline" and "gas station" over "petrol" and "petrol station". A lot of relevant signage I've seen just perusing images here on the Commons backs up this claim as well. As such, I support making "Gas stations in Saskatchewan" the primary category name. Ponderosapine210 (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Neutral @Mindmatrix, Auntof6, and Ponderosapine210: My comment is maybe a bit ahead of time, but may be enlightening. Commons is a good place for global harmonization. Globalization and hence English-language harmonization between Canada, USA, United Kingdom, Australia should be quite obvious.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support if locals tend to use the term "Gas station" more usually than "Petrol station". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Web search for Saskatchewan "gas station" generates some 525,000 hits. Saskatchewan "petrol station" generates 345,000 results. This suggests that both terms are in use there, but that "gas station" is more common. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Moved back to "Gas stations in Saskatchewan" as suggested, after 5 years of open discussion. Matches parent category for Canada. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The village of Wigsley, Nottinghamshire has no parish church of St George. This category should not exist. Motacilla (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- To clarify - before it was blanked, this category had a link to this historical building page for a church in North Clifton, a few km from Wigsley - so it seems it was almost certainly improperly named. The images that were in this category have been correctly moved to Category:St George the Martyr, Clifton. I don't know the area, but if anyone else might easily be confused as to the location of the church, a redirect could be left behind. If such confusion is unlikely, a redirect is unnecessary.
- Incidentally, I notice there are villages of North Clifton (where this church is) and South Clifton (right next door), as well as a totally separate village of Clifton, all in Nottinghamshire. Wouldn't it make sense to have the church category called Category:St George the Martyr, North Clifton? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Motacilla to get more feedback. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Themightyquill: The nominated category is empty. The content is likely moved to Category:St George the Martyr, Clifton. I think we should delete the nominated category because it is misleading--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Estopedist1 Category:Saint George Church (Wigsley) can definitely be deleted, but the question remains if Category:St George the Martyr, Clifton is an appropriate alternative. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I suggest to follow enwiki en:St George the Martyr's Church, North & South Clifton--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
No action needed at this point. New CfD (or BOLD move) is fine if the new category name needs adjusted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Commons is all about photographs. We should use these cats (with the word "photographs" for cats of "photographs of photographs". If not, what does "Category:Soups of France" mean? Do we have the real soups in there, or we only have the pictures of them? I gave the example from France because we also have a Category:Photographs of flags of France, and possibly similar cats for other country flags also. Look into the France cat and you will see that people added the mother category (Flags of France) to their flag pictures. Which is the normal thing, IMHO, of course. E4024 (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- More: What does "Category:Photographs of women" mean? For me, the pictures we took of photographs of women, for example old photographs with archive value, and not the women we photographed ourselves. No? --E4024 (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Categories with names like "Photographs of foo" are usually tagged with the {{Photos}} template, and they are for subcategories that contain photographs that have certain criteria in common. Those criteria could be various things, like panoramics, aerial photographs, black and white photographs, and others. Category:Photographs of women is this type of category. There is a discussion about these at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/11/Category:Photographs, where we have been discussing possible better names for Category:Photographs and the "Photographs of foo" categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've occasionally seen topic areas where photographs are treated as an exception, with graphic images being the main thing. I think I remember seeing this for road signs of some kind, and maybe for coats of arms, but I can't find an example now.
- Why limit this to photographs of flags of Turkey? The same issue exists for other places. I would support changing things so that any photographs of flags category, from Category:Photographs of flags on down, would be for a grouping similar to the way Category:Photographs of women is. That is, it would contain only other categories, and those categories could be for things like black and white photographs of flags, where the important aspect has to do with the photographs and not the flags. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Auntof6 and E4024: I propose to close this discussion. Further discussion to be held at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/05/Category:Photographs of flags by country--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm OK with that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Discussion will take place at the newer CfD. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Suggest change name of category to St. David's Church, Wayne, PA. The church website says that the church is located "near Radnor". It is the same historic church. See http://www.stdavidschurch.org/ Drbones1950 (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Suggested name shift
No objection from my side, I appreciate better research, I just followed the name of the corresponding entry in the English Wikipedia. ˜˜˜ Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Drbones1950, it seems to be listed at NRHP. How is it called there? --Achim (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hm... checked out the NRHP at http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/PA/Delaware/districts.html, didn't see the church listed there, unless it is in North Wayne or South Wayne historic districts. But the church itself was not listed by name. Drbones1950 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- I just found en:Downtown Wayne Historic District. Maybe it's there? --Achim (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hm... checked out the NRHP at http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/PA/Delaware/districts.html, didn't see the church listed there, unless it is in North Wayne or South Wayne historic districts. But the church itself was not listed by name. Drbones1950 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment I have no objection to the name change per se, but I suggest it be changed to: "St. David's Church (Wayne, Pennsylvania)". Typically the state is not abbreviated with Postal Service abbreviations. As to its listing on the National Register of Historic Places, it can be found here. It is individually listed as "St. David's Church and Graveyard." It does not give a city or town location, but says it is north of Media, so that is not helpful here. As an aside, the above link from Drbones1950 is not to the register itself, and that site should not be used as its information is not necessarily accurate. Farragutful (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Don't change - Please see St David's Episcopal Church (Radnor, Pennsylvania) on Wp:en. The church's location is very confusing since it is in 3 townships. Radnor is where the office is and the main church (known as the Chapel). The old church, which is mainly what we're concerned with, is in Newtown Township, but that is super confusing since it is extremely far from "Newtown Square" as the center of the township is known (also there are other Newtown Townships in Pennsylvania). It's closest to Radnor and further away from Wayne, and other possibilities, including the town of St. Davids. BTW we are also concerned with the graveyard which is part of the NRHP site. The article in en:Wiki summariezes it all nicely
"The church grounds lie at the intersection of three townships and two counties. The old church building, along with a small portion of the graveyard, is located in Newtown Township, Delaware County; the chapel and offices are located in Radnor Township, Delaware County; and most of the graveyard is in Easttown Township, Chester County." Don't feel too badly - everybody is confused by this. Smallbones (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Don't change - I agree that I think of St. David's as being in Wayne, but that goes against a whole lot of tradition.
- Most famously, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's 1880 poem, "Old St. David's at Radnor."[12]
- A 1906 history of the church: *Albert Owen Evans, Old St. David's Radnor, 1700-1906.[13]
- A 1915 history of the church: *Henry Pleasants, The History of Old St. David's Church: Radnor, Delaware County, Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1915).[14]
- Numerous references, such as: *"A Welsh Antecedent for St. David's Church, Radnor," Pennsylvania Dutch Folklore Center, 1967.[15]
- And even the Historical Society of Pennsylvania: St. David's Church (Radnor, Pa.) records.[16] -- BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Drbones1950: Further thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Stale discussion. I didn't read all this text above, but why not enwiki en:St. David's Episcopal Church (Radnor, Pennsylvania)?--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:St. David's Episcopal Church (Radnor, Pennsylvania). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Overcategorised. Or does somebody expect categories like Jews in Jain temples or Jains in Buddhist temples? Achim (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I could see distinguishing between Jains and non-Jains in Jain temples, maybe. However, the only file here shows a temple that I don't see any people in, Jain or non-Jain. Maybe the creator will respond and explain what was intended. If this category goes, so should its parent, Category:Jains in temples (created by the same user), because this is the only thing in that category. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'll recategorise images in it to make it clearer. The intention is to categorise Jains in Jain temples, Hindu temples, churches, etc. And people of other religion in Jain temples. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Anything new after all these years? E4024 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: please ping all participants when you "re-open" any stale discussion. Participants are @Achim55, Auntof6, and Capankajsmilyo: --Estopedist1 (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- i support deletion of Jains in Jain temples and Jains in temples. RZuo (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'll recategorise images in it to make it clearer. The intention is to categorise Jains in Jain temples, Hindu temples, churches, etc. And people of other religion in Jain temples. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Move to its original name at Category:Gas stations in Quebec, as the common term in Canada is 'gas station', not 'petrol station'. The category was moved without discussion in 2015, ostensibly for "harmonization, to match with upper categories". Mindmatrix 21:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support, leaving this page as a redirect. Note that the parent category here is Category:Gas stations in Canada by province or territory, but the cat above that is Category:Petrol stations in Canada: shouldn't that be renamed along with these? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support: From what I can gather, Canadians prefer the terms "gas/gasoline" and "gas station" over "petrol" and "petrol station". A lot of relevant signage I've seen just perusing images here on the Commons backs up this claim as well. Ponderosapine210 (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Consensus to rename to Category:Gas stations in Quebec -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Move to its original name at Category:Gas stations in Ontario, as the common term in Canada is 'gas station', not 'petrol station'. The category was moved without discussion in 2015, ostensibly for "harmonization, to match with upper categories". Mindmatrix 21:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
w:Filling station
A filling station is a facility that sells fuel and engine lubricants for motor vehicles. The most common fuels sold in the 2010s are gasoline (gasoline or gas in the U.S. and Canada, generally petrol elsewhere) and diesel fuel. A filling station that sells only electric energy is also known as a charging station, while a typical filling station can also be known as a fuelling station, garage (South Africa and United Kingdom), gasbar (Canada), gas station (United States and Canada), gasoline stand (Japan), petrol pump or petrol bunk (India), petrol garage, petrol station (Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa and United Kingdom), service station (Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom), a services (United Kingdom),[1] or servo (Australia).
199.7.156.141 00:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support, leaving this page as a redirect. Note that the parent category here is Category:Gas stations in Canada by province or territory, but the cat above that is Category:Petrol stations in Canada: shouldn't that be renamed along with these? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support: From what I can gather, Canadians prefer the terms "gas/gasoline" and "gas station" over "petrol" and "petrol station". A lot of relevant signage I've seen just perusing images here on the Commons backs up this claim as well. As such, I support making "Gas stations in Ontario" the primary category name. Ponderosapine210 (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Consensus to rename to Category:Gas stations in Ontario -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Move to its original name at Category:Gas stations in Toronto, as the common term in Canada is 'gas station', not 'petrol station'. The category was moved without discussion in 2015. Mindmatrix 21:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support, leaving this page as a redirect. Note that the parent category here is Category:Gas stations in Canada by province or territory, but the cat above that is Category:Petrol stations in Canada: shouldn't that be renamed along with these? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Consensus to rename to Category:Gas stations in Toronto -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Move to its original name at Category:Gas stations in New Brunswick, as the common term in Canada is 'gas station', not 'petrol station'. The category was moved without discussion in 2015, ostensibly for "harmonization, to match with upper categories". Mindmatrix 21:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support, leaving this page as a redirect. Note that the parent category here is Category:Gas stations in Canada by province or territory, but the cat above that is Category:Petrol stations in Canada: shouldn't that be renamed along with these? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support: From what I can gather, Canadians prefer the terms "gas/gasoline" and "gas station" over "petrol" and "petrol station". A lot of relevant signage I've seen just perusing images here on the Commons backs up this claim as well. As such, I support making "Gas stations in New Brunswick" the primary category name. Ponderosapine210 (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Consensus to move to Category:Gas stations in New Brunswick. -- Themightyquill (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Do we need to do this again? See Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Terrorists. Can we create some kind of lock on new re-creations without discussion? Themightyquill (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure about the rules on re-creations of deleted categories but as they may be deleted just for being empty the context here is quite different from the Wikipedias.
- This category should at least exist as a redirect of something like Category:Members of a terrorist organization if you really dislike plain and straightforward terms. How can there be terrorism and terrorist organizations without people? A terrorist is merely an advocate of terror/political violence, that's a rather clear and simple concept to me. The exact opposite of Category:Pacifists which doesn't seem to pose problem. As they are not 'evil'? But still that doesn't seem very logical to have just one side and not the other and one might argue of POV here too.
- I think we really need a global category for people ("considered") involved in terrorist acts. If political correctness doesn't allow it to be named Category:Terrorists, never mind, but the concept is a basic one and the category will pop up again now and then if we carry on merely deleting it. - Olybrius (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's not political correctness, Olybrius, it's legal liability for slander. A category for "terrorists" (or "terrorist organizations" for that matter) has no specific attribution to anyone, so then the attribution falls to wikimedia commons - we are calling that person a terrorist, that organization a terrorist organization, just because someone puts an image in that category. Which organizations are or aren't designated terrorist organizations varies from country to country and over time, and it doesn't make sense for us to have to keep up with that, when it offers no clear benefit to anyone. If someone is a member of Al-Qaida, put them in a category for members of Al-Qaida - it's an NPOV category. Terrorism may be a "plan and simple term" to you and I'm glad you have a definition that meets your own personal needs, but given that there are countless books written trying to define the controversial term, I think others might feel differently. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- You'll note, of course, that en:Category:Terrorists does not exist for precisely this reason. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's the point of political correctness, censoring offending terms to avoid legal problems: No baddies, everyone is nice and cute. So terrorism without terrorists should be the rule here and maybe a subtle "people involved in terrorism" like on the English Wikipedia but no perpetrators because some might sue or bomb us otherwise? "Violent non-state actors" anyone? Aw, at least we have lots of criminals ;) - Olybrius (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- You'll note, of course, that en:Category:Terrorists does not exist for precisely this reason. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's not political correctness, Olybrius, it's legal liability for slander. A category for "terrorists" (or "terrorist organizations" for that matter) has no specific attribution to anyone, so then the attribution falls to wikimedia commons - we are calling that person a terrorist, that organization a terrorist organization, just because someone puts an image in that category. Which organizations are or aren't designated terrorist organizations varies from country to country and over time, and it doesn't make sense for us to have to keep up with that, when it offers no clear benefit to anyone. If someone is a member of Al-Qaida, put them in a category for members of Al-Qaida - it's an NPOV category. Terrorism may be a "plan and simple term" to you and I'm glad you have a definition that meets your own personal needs, but given that there are countless books written trying to define the controversial term, I think others might feel differently. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Libel laws date at least to the Roman era - suggesting they are connected with the concept of political correctness further demonstrates the weak logic of your argument. People have either been convicted of a crime (criminals) or not. I have no problem with the similar Category:People convicted on terrorism charges - in fact, if you look, you'll see that I created it. You'll also notice we don't have a Category:Baddies. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- So, your logic is that if a contributor puts someone's pic in a category like say Category:Sex offenders, then that person could sue us for libel and thus that we shouldn't have such a category but instead only something like Category:Condemned sex offenders to be legally covered? - Olybrius (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well, OK, maybe unambiguous periphrases are better after all. - Olybrius (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm saying that Category:Sex offenders indicates someone who has been convicted of a crime, and is greatly preferable to Category:Perverts. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Final arguments to conclude my contribution on this topic as I hate protracted discussions maybe as much as (self-)censorship ;)
- Firstly about its deletion on the English Wikipedia: Wikipedias are different as categories are rather accessorial there (I personally rarely use them) while they are central to the project here, so the deletion of a category there shouldn't necessarily imply mimicry here (the argument would be much more valid between different Wikipedias). Our needs are different, they do not need a Terrorist category there because they do not need a Terrorist article either, Terrorism is sufficient. Here it is different, we are a document repository and we quite need and have documents on terrorists.
- Secondly, while this category is indeed quite contentious, I can't help considering its deletion as overkill. Adequate disclaimer and aptly phrased subcategories could be pefectly sufficient to avoid judicial issues. It could also be considered as a metacat, as Infrogmation (talk · contribs) suggested previously, with the disclaimer requesting to put documents in the appropriate subcategory. This category has the merit of grouping all perpetrators or advocates of terrorism and I would miss it.
- And thirdly and finally, if "terrorist" has and is being used abusively by authoritarian regimes it is not ours to take sides. And the term is also not a weasel word nor as difficult to define as you suggest, the English Wiktionary has not that much trouble in doing so, I quote: "A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals.". As I said: just the contrary of a pacifist! - Olybrius (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Final arguments to conclude my contribution on this topic as I hate protracted discussions maybe as much as (self-)censorship ;)
- I'm saying that Category:Sex offenders indicates someone who has been convicted of a crime, and is greatly preferable to Category:Perverts. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well, OK, maybe unambiguous periphrases are better after all. - Olybrius (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- So, your logic is that if a contributor puts someone's pic in a category like say Category:Sex offenders, then that person could sue us for libel and thus that we shouldn't have such a category but instead only something like Category:Condemned sex offenders to be legally covered? - Olybrius (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Above the suggestion was made that Category:Sex offenders is preferrable to Category:Perverts. I agree.
- I'll add that, I think both Category:Convicted terrorists and Category:Individuals cleared of terrorist allegations should have Category:Terrorists or Category:Terrorism as their parent category. Geo Swan (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think we have one, but why would a category people cleared of terrorist allegations be a sub-category of Category:Terrorists? Category:Terrorism, however, would be fine. That's how things were before. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The world is full of terrorists and we have many images to place in this category. --E4024 (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment So you guys don't even accept Category:Members of a terrorist organization, and not because of political correctness but due to "liability for slender". Is this why an IP and a registered user have added the PKK terrorist Sakine Cansız to the Category:Human rights activists from Turkey moths ago? (I have not touched that indecency for months waiting to see which one of those Wikipedians following my fight against terrorist propaganda in all WM projects would notice this shameful situation and do something...) I gave two victims to terrorism from my family and lost other people, friends, compatriots in the hands of ASALA, PKK, 17 November, and ultra-rightist terrorism. Should I sue Wikimedia for the above case "adding insult to injury"? Do something now: Add her to "Category:Killed terrorists" at least; people whose familiars have been killed by PKK terrorism also deserve attention, at least that much as the terrorists themselves. --E4024 (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why would you make Category:Members of a terrorist organization in lieu of Category:Members of the Kurdistan Workers' Party? The latter is a simple unbiased statement of fact. The former clearly has a value judgement attached and provides less actual information. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Read: "The leaders of the PKK Kurdish guerrilla organisation has (sic, E4024) said they have been in indirect talks with the United States, despite being listed by Washington as terrorists, asking it to intervene and mediate in its war with Turkey." (The Telegraph). Not my invention. --E4024 (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why would you make Category:Members of a terrorist organization in lieu of Category:Members of the Kurdistan Workers' Party? The latter is a simple unbiased statement of fact. The former clearly has a value judgement attached and provides less actual information. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- I never said it was your invention. The United States undoubtedly considers PKK terrorists as do many states, but that doesn't mean everyone does. Note that the Guardian describes them as a guerilla organization, and only says that the US lists them as a terrorist organization. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Then please inform the Guardian that not only the US but also NATO, EU, and at least 20 other countries do so. With all my due respect. --E4024 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's certainly worthy of including in the wikipedia article, but it's still a value judgement offered by those countries and governmental organizations. You're suggesting that we should be LESS neutral than a well-respected newspaper? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is included in the WP article to which I contribute usually. That "value added judgement" makes a distinction between killers and their victims; something I adore. I am not sure if it is being less neutral (no need for capital letters, we're all literate people here); but I do that since a long time and this makes me sleep better at night. I recommend everybody to do so, if they wish. Of course, IMHO, the newspaper that you seem to appreciate also makes a "value added judgement" by acting the way they do. Anyway, I have already stated my case: There are terrorists everywhere and there have to be cats to cover them in Commons. I see the word "terrorists" so frecuently in academic publications and the press, including no less respected papers, that I'm well convinced of having these cats. --E4024 (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- That's certainly worthy of including in the wikipedia article, but it's still a value judgement offered by those countries and governmental organizations. You're suggesting that we should be LESS neutral than a well-respected newspaper? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Then please inform the Guardian that not only the US but also NATO, EU, and at least 20 other countries do so. With all my due respect. --E4024 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Sorry third parties, for this has turned into a conversation, with which I will not continue any more. E4024
- It's fine that you don't feel politically neutral, and I wouldn't encourage you to be neutral. I'm not neutral on the issue either. But we're talking about wikimedia commons, not our own personal views. Category:Terrorists is no more neutral than Category:Freedom fighters, and I don't think having those two parallel category trees makes sense. I'd instead propose neither. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, bless the anarchy of Wikimedia :) I'd advocate deletion (again). After all, Category:Terrorists has hardly much content and no inclusion criteria. If it is kept, presumably the creator will be adding it to Category:Nelson Mandela, Category:Fidel Castro and all other people who've been defined as terrorists at some point or another, by one government or another?! There seems to be a well-established (though questionable) Category:Terrorism category tree, so we simply don't need Category:Terrorists too. Sionk (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- What about a move to Category:Members of organizations designated as terrorist as a metacategory. Then we have some clear basis in fact and this doesn't just become a hole for everyone to fill in their biases. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
NOTE:I said I would not return to this discussion but I have to make a clarification. While this never-ending discussion continues/is forgotten, the concerned cat has been filled with "Islamic" (sic) terrorists who abuse the name of Islam and insult moslems with their inhuman deeds that no religion would condone. However, as terrorists are not limited to those evils, I will use this same cat for Category:Members of PKK; they are very well recognized as terrorists by international organizations and many countries including the US and EU and convicted as terrorists in many instances. If you can agree upon a "better" name for "terrorists" then you may change the names of all the concerned cats. For example People of the Islamic State which is also a subcat of Category:Terrorists. I will also open a Category:Terrorists from Turkey, as Abdullah Öcalan is not only a "supporter/fan of Galatasaray Spor Kulübü, (as his PR lobby tries to show :) but also a convicted member of PKK, convicted for terrorism by the highest courts in Turkey and whose sentence have been approved/ratified by the European Court of Human Rights. Thanks. E4024 (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Borderline no consensus. The discussion is evenly split into various opinions with no overreaching support. However, since the majority clearly wants to get rid of this value-added category, I have decided to rename it to the euphemism "People charged with terrorism" à la English Wikipedia. The category name Category:Terrorists may remain as a redirect, although an admin can delete and salt the category name without prejudice. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Clarification: This request is for Category:Lutsk by day and its immediate subcategories.
The subcategories here are for individual days, which is more detail than needed. Many of the subcategories have only a few entries, some as few as one. I think categories by month would be enough to cover what there is here. Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. Obviously, each day might have an infinite number of images. This is only the beginning of categorization. Others arguments are too subjective to discuss them and not valid for deletion. --sasha (krassotkin) 18:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be creating categories for things we might have in the future. I really don't see value in categories like this that contain images for a specific day, such as March 2, but for any number of years. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- There are no empty categories for the future. They are created as needed and gradually replenished. Just this work has begun not so long ago. For the second sentence. I do not see any value in this topic. So what? This is not an argument. The same day in different years is often closer to each other than two days in the same year. There we find a similar events, weather and much more. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe there are similarities between the same date in different years, but there would be the same similarities with a longer time frame, such as a month. If there is an event that occurs on the same day each year, files for that event can be grouped under the month category. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- You should not worry, we'll have thousands of photos in each category of day. I'm working on it, as you can see. At least they do not need to be combined by this reason. --sasha (krassotkin) 09:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- I still don't think these are useful, even if they get thousands of photos. To me, this is a case of creating categories because we can, without regard to whether they're useful. I also would not like to see this extended to other places. No matter how this discussion ends, I think I'll start a more general discussion about having month/day categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Besides that, many of the images in the subcategories don't show anything that's significant by day. I just looked at the images in one of the new subcategories you just added, Category:Lutsk on July 30. That category has two images of a building, and one is the interior of the building. Having those in a category for July 30 but without a year isn't useful. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's only because we are not yet completed categorization. Both are starting to emerge in a more complete categories. For example: Category:Lutsk on August 24 - but this is only beginning too. --sasha (krassotkin) 09:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not just that. It doesn't matter how many files are in each category: I'd still think these aren't useful. Are you really putting every file for Lutsk into one of these categories? That seems so unnecessary. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- You think it is useless, others think that it is useful. But it does not violate any rules and nothing got harm. I don't understand for what create conflicts of nowhere. --sasha (krassotkin) 09:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Just because they don't violate any rules doesn't mean they should be kept. The harm is that there is now a growing category subtree -- and other subtrees for the similar categories linked above -- that will have to be maintained even though there is no explanation of what purpose they serve. The harm is also that putting files into these categories could make it harder for people to find what they're looking for if the files aren't fully categorized in other respects. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- But if you do not like something also doesn't mean they should be deleted. The maximum exact categorization is our advantage. Each additional "tag" helps us in search. We have no restrictions on the depth and branching of category tree. --sasha (krassotkin) 11:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that just because one person doesn't like something, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. The issue here, though, is usefulness, not whether I like the category. There are lots of categories I don't like, but which I can see are useful, so I don't nominate those. You keep saying this category is useful, but you haven't said how it's useful. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Just because they don't violate any rules doesn't mean they should be kept. The harm is that there is now a growing category subtree -- and other subtrees for the similar categories linked above -- that will have to be maintained even though there is no explanation of what purpose they serve. The harm is also that putting files into these categories could make it harder for people to find what they're looking for if the files aren't fully categorized in other respects. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not just that. It doesn't matter how many files are in each category: I'd still think these aren't useful. Are you really putting every file for Lutsk into one of these categories? That seems so unnecessary. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe there are similarities between the same date in different years, but there would be the same similarities with a longer time frame, such as a month. If there is an event that occurs on the same day each year, files for that event can be grouped under the month category. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be creating categories for things we might have in the future. I really don't see value in categories like this that contain images for a specific day, such as March 2, but for any number of years. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Krassotkin Someone in the future *might* upload an enormous numbers of photos of 2:37pm on January 24, 2015 in Lutsk, but that doesn't mean we create Category:2:37pm, 24-01-2015 in Lutsk just because we have one photo taken at that time. There is absolutely no need to sub-categorize by day like this, and it makes each category less useful because of the small number of images in each. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: We should not wait for the future. We have hundreds of images on each day right now in subcategories of the city. I just recently have started to categorize them on this basis. Your suggestion for categorization is not as absurd as it seems. As you know, several years ago, we started to create a category for each date (for example Category:2016-11-19). Now we have sub-categories for this for countries and themes (for example see: Category:Photographs taken on 2016-11-17). And everything indicates that we will have even more detailed categorization in the future. --sasha (krassotkin) 15:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Krassotkin: The dates you mention have years attached. The subcategories being discussed here do not, nor do the Putin and Medvedev categories. However, even if they did have years, we should wait until there are a reasonable number of files before creating a category, which is why I also nominated the Switzerland categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- A-priory dates are even more detailed than days and their subcategories always will have fewer files. We shouldn't anything. Here is no such rules. --sasha (krassotkin) 20:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Krassotkin: "We have hundreds of images on each day right now" because it's easy to lump together images by useless criteria. At this very moment, we probably have hundreds of thousands of photos on commons taken at 10:23am, but we don't have Category:Photos taken at 10:23am because it would be useless. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Y
- I don't think it's something absolutely incredible or useless. For example for such images: File:London, Elizabeth Tower -- 2016 -- 4802.jpg. --sasha (krassotkin) 10:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed completely. We have Category:Time 10:02. If there were enough photos of a certain clockface at a certain time, I'd even support sub-categorizing that by time. A clock looks noticeably different at 10:02 than at 10:03. The images have something visually in common. What do the images of Vladimir Putin on April 3 (of any year) have in common visually? Nothing. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Krassotkin: The dates you mention have years attached. The subcategories being discussed here do not, nor do the Putin and Medvedev categories. However, even if they did have years, we should wait until there are a reasonable number of files before creating a category, which is why I also nominated the Switzerland categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: It seems like mass deletion. Similar topics: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Switzerland by day, Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Vladimir Putin by day, Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Dmitry Medvedev by day. --sasha (krassotkin) 15:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your point is. No files would be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- The categorization in these topics has been established by many people. Its removal is similar to files deletion. Anyway in my opinion it will worsen the semantic coherence of the project. --sasha (krassotkin) 20:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Unless there was a public discussion about whether to create these categories, it doesn't matter how many people were involved in establishing them. I'm asking for evaluation on whether they serve a useful purpose. If they don't, then the files in them would be recategorized, not deleted. The category would be replaced by something else, whether it's something that exists or something new. I don't understand what you mean by "the semantic coherence of the project". --Auntof6 (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- The categorization in these topics has been established by many people. Its removal is similar to files deletion. Anyway in my opinion it will worsen the semantic coherence of the project. --sasha (krassotkin) 20:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your point is. No files would be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per krassotkin Evrik (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Intersection is a mechanism that can be done by software. So I'm not the only one who is waiting for the day the wiki soft provides that feature when showing category pages (without use of any external tools). On that day many thousands of intersecting categories will become unnecessary and will be deleted for sure. --Achim (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete By month is good enough. No need to get more granular than that. Abzeronow (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete No one will care about images on the exact same day but on various years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Delete the categories | |||
| Actions | Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | To quote a comment by Krassotkin from 2016 "we'll have thousands of photos in each category of day." Yet 8 years most of the categories still only have image. Gee, who could have guessed the categories wouldn't be filled with "thousands of photographs" years later? Anyway, there's absolutely no reason legitimate reason what-so-ever to keep the categories if they are never going to have more then a couple of images. Really, they should have just been deleted back in 2016 or better yet, not created in the first place. BTW, it's worth mentioning that the user who originally created these categories, Krassotkin, has since been globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation for violating the Terms of Use. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
The subcategories here are for individual days, which is more detail than needed. Many of the subcategories have only a few entries, some as few as one. I think categories by month and year would be enough to cover what there is here. Auntof6 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support I don't think upmerging any of these to "Switzerland by month/year" would produce unreasonably sized categories. Naturally, the images can all be categorized by date (alone) separately. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: It seems like mass deletion. Similar topics: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Lutsk by day, Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Vladimir Putin by day, Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Dmitry Medvedev by day. --sasha (krassotkin) 15:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose See my arguments there: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Lutsk by day --sasha (krassotkin) 15:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per krassotkin Evrik (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support: I think these categories are excessive. Commons:Structured data is supposed to make intersection categories go away some day, but it's not known yet if it will succeed. It's not likely that anything can be done about it in the meantime, since these discussions are unlikely to reach a consensus and there's nothing to stop people creating the categories. Of course there's no obligation for anybody who dislikes the categories to maintain them in any way: they are easily ignored. There's some earlier discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/06/Category:16th April 2012 in Switzerland. --ghouston (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- There's a proposal to delete all such categories at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Emptying_.22Category:.7B.7BCountry.7D.7D_photographs_taken_on_.7B.7Bdate.7D.7D.22_categories_into_.22Category:Photographs_taken_on_.7B.7Bdate.7D.7D.22. --ghouston (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note:that proposal was archived. It can be seen at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2017/02#Emptying "Category: photographs taken on " categories into "Category:Photographs taken on ". --Auntof6 (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, it ended with no consensus, so I suppose this one should also be closed as no consensus (as is usual for discussions about this type of category). --ghouston (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed that there are duplicate categories: Category:Photographs of Switzerland by date and Category:Switzerland by day. Maybe somebody who likes these categories can merge one into the other? --ghouston (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Photographs of Switzerland by date should suffice, you don't see a Category:United States by day. Any country with a "Photographs of (country name) by date" category should not also have a "(country name) by day" category. --Mjrmtg (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Except that use of the "Photographs of" verbiage should be minimized, used only for cases where the subcats are things like "Aerial photographs of", "Black and white photographs of", etc. That's not the case here. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support I think upmerging photos in this with "Switzerland by month/year" is good enough. Abzeronow (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. I think we should discuss these individually or better yet, make a hard-line rule like "you need at least 3 items in a category of these types or just put them into the two parent ones." I would rather we have a larger proposal regarding categorization and then make the categories follow that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- In retrospect, delete as we have photographs organized by individual date. This seems too granular in retrospect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete parent Category:Places by day is poorly developed. Category:Countries by day is missing, at all. Category:Countries by month by year does the job, Category:Switzerland by month by year to be created--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Who knew this would remain open for five years. Evrik (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- About what I expected at 07:38, 5 July 2017. Also no surprise to me that nobody has been able to merge the two Switzerland by day/date categories. --ghouston (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Up-merge the images to by month or year categories | |||
| Actions | Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | Although not particularly overwhelming there's clearly a consensus to up-merge the images to either by month or year categories depending on the circumstance. I'll also point out that there's been at least a couple of similar discussions in other place recently where it was clear that these types of super granular "by day" categories are neither useful or wanted at this point. Perhaps that will change in the future, but there's zero point in keeping the categories until then if it ever does. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Clarification: This nomination is for Category:Vladimir Putin by day and its immediate subcategories.
The subcategories here are each for Putin on a given calendar day, but with no year specified. I see no value in that. Even if the year were specified, I think categories by individual day would be too much detail. Categories by month and year (for example, Vladimir Putin in July 2013) would be enough. Auntof6 (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This meta category was created to cover each of the categories like Category:Vladimir Putin on January 1, which were created to move his images from day categories like Category:1 January. Category:Vladimir Putin in July 28 has foureen images that were moved from the broader category. The same for Category:Dmitry Medvedev by date. The work never got done, so you'll see in Category:11 November, there are images of Putin that need to be sorted. Evrik (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Evrik: I'm not sure I understand you, but I may not have been clear. This request is for Category:Vladimir Putin by day and its subcategories. It is not helpful to have categories like Category:Vladimir Putin on January 1 which would have media for January 1 in different years. The same is true for the similar ones I nominated: I'll make sure those are clear as well. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Evrik: I understand what you're saying about these categories being created to diffuse the day categories. My view is that this is not the right choice for that diffusion. Can you explain how it is helpful to have a category for a person, for example Category:Vladimir Putin in July 28, that would have images of Putin from July 28, 2000, from July 28, 2005, from July 28, 2016, and from July 28 in other years? What would those all have in common that would be useful? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This was the best answer I could come to. However, pending a better solution, they should stay as it its. Evrik (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- What I'm proposing (categories by year, or at most by month and year if there are enough files to justify that) seems to me to be that better solution. I'm definitely not saying to put them back where they were; many of the files in those original categories should be moved to something like "photographs taken on 2016-01-01" (I don't remember the exact naming of those categories). --Auntof6 (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- That could work. Evrik (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support There is absolutely no value in categorizing by day of the year. Upmerge to Putin by month/year categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment User:Russavia and others placed a lot of Putin images in individual days of the year. I'm relatively neutral to what happens as long as the images don't get put back where they were. Evrik (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment It seems like mass deletion. Similar topics: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Switzerland by day, Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Lutsk by day, Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Dmitry Medvedev by day. --sasha (krassotkin) 15:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose See my arguments there: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Lutsk by day --sasha (krassotkin) 15:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Putin by month is sufficient. Abzeronow (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Commons should not be a decadent democracy that only counts votes. (We should consider arguments more than head count.) Having said that I agree with the opening remarks of this CfD: "The subcategories here are each for Putin on a given calendar day, but with no year specified. I see no value in that. Even if the year were specified, I think categories by individual day would be too much detail. Categories by month and year (for example, Vladimir Putin in July 2013) would be enough." --E4024 (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support There is no reason to care that we have pictures of any individual on June 22 on 2015 and 2017 separately. The months are sufficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support After finding myself editing one of the files by adding a category with the month and the year, I came across this category. The category and its subcats don't aid with proper categorization or navigation. I'd support deleting them outright. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Delete the categories | |||
| Actions | Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | It's pretty clear there's a consensus to delete the categories. I'll note there's been several other CfDs having to do with similar subjects that both had the same result. So it's pretty clear that these kinds of "by day" categories are to granular and not wanted. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Clarification: This request is for Category:Dmitry Medvedev by day and its immediate subcategories.
The categories here are for calendar days, but with no year specified. I see no value in that. If we really need time categories for this person, having them for month and year (for example, June 2016) would be enough. Auntof6 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Move to month and year. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: It seems like mass deletion. Similar topics: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Switzerland by day, Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Lutsk by day, Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Vladimir Putin by day. --sasha (krassotkin) 15:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose See my arguments there: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Lutsk by day --sasha (krassotkin) 15:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This meta category was created to cover each of the categories like Category:Vladimir Putin on January 1, which were created to move his images from day categories like Category:1 January. Category:Vladimir Putin in July 28 has foureen images that were moved from the broader category. The same for Category:Dmitry Medvedev by date. The work never got done, so you'll see in Category:11 November, there are images of Putin and Medvedev that need to be sorted. User:Russavia and others placed a lot of Medvedev images in individual days of the year. I'm relatively neutral to what happens as long as the images don't get put back where they were. Evrik (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- I understand that these categories were created to diffuse the day categories. My argument is that this wasn't a good way of diffusing them. The images in any one of these categories don't have anything meaningful in common just because they are from the same calendar day. A better way to group these images would be either by year, or by month and year if there are enough images for that. That way, the files in the category would all be closely related by time. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Move to month and year. No need to do by day. Abzeronow (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to propose that Category:Dmitry Medvedev at Easter and Category:Dmitry Medvedev at Christmas would be suitable and useful replacements for some of these. The rest, unless they indicate a particular annual holiday or commemoration, are useless. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Easter and Christmas would be fine as you say. Abzeronow (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Commons should not be a decadent democracy that only counts votes. (We should consider arguments more than head count.) Having said that I agree with the opening remarks of this CfD: "The categories here are for calendar days, but with no year specified. I see no value in that. If we really need time categories for this person, having them for month and year (for example, June 2016) would be enough." --E4024 (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Not a adequate form of categorization. The month and year categories do a better job. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete More to by month for Medvedev and by day by country. This will start to get really ridiculous very quickly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Delete the categories | |||
| Actions | Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | There's clearly a consensus to delete the categories. I'll also point out that there's been several CfDs for "by day" categories like these ones recently that resulted in the same outcome. So it's pretty clear that these types of categories aren't helpful or wanted on here at this point. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC) | |||