Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/01
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 January 2017
Extraneous category that should be deleted Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: empty category. --JuTa 10:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
was a typo, moved Effeietsanders (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
created in error as mispelling of Photochrom JMiall (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Bad name, deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Incorrectly named category Takeaway (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Closing - deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect category name. Correct is @ Category:Writers in Arabic. Takeaway (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Closing - deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
bad name, look at Category:Luegislandturm Schofför (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Bad name, deleted. --Achim (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete; wrong name due Bodhisattwa (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, typo. --Achim (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
An empty category, the name of the category is erroneous. The request created by the creator of Category:Dmitry Nikolaevich Tugarinov; the category with the correct name was created (Category:Dmitry Nikitovich Tugarinov). --Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Bad name, author's request. --Achim (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
wrong person 178.197.234.29 22:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed, I'll have a closer look. --Achim (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Moved its content and disambig'd Category:Franz Keller. --Achim (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Incorrectly named. Replaced by correctly spelled version. ACCassidy (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- There's still a file here. When the category is empty, you could put a {{Bad name}} or {{Category renamed}} template on it. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Empty dupe of Category:Mimacraea skoptoles. --Achim (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense as a category (at least); content intended to be included in User talk:Jameslwoodward. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: . -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've tagged it as an empty category. An admin will probably delete it soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Speedied.--KTo288 (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
You mean Category:Cityscapes? I think this cat is twice. Please delete. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
...and subcats. I think it's not a good idea to add the title of a web page to a category title this way. Should be renamed. Achim (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- What is wrong with putting foo in the category name, when the images in the category come from foo, and foo is the thing the images have in common? It is the name of a software BTW.
- Should we also rename Created with Stella, because they have a homepage? Or should we rename Images from Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, because it might be not a good idea to add the title of a book to a category?
- I don't care how this is called, BTW. I just try to convince the uploader to create categories for image sets at all (context). Watchduck (quack) 19:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Fine, I didn't see that polyHedronisme refers to special software. At Created with Stella it's obvious. But I'm not in the mood for further discussing, so let's leave it as it is. --Achim (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Kept without any action. Feel free to reopen. --Achim (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate and extraneous category Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Empty, no objections. --Achim (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Extraneous and duplicate category that should be deleted Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Empty, no objections. --Achim (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a duplicative category that should be deleted Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Empty, no objections. --Achim (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Creo que debería adoptarse el nombre oficial, en castellano, de la estancia del Real Alcázar a la que esta categoría se refiere: Sala de la Justicia Alberto Bravo (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Alberto requests a renaming to Category:Sala de la Justicia, Alcázar de Sevilla or similar. If we look at Category:Alcázar of Seville there are the subcats named inconsistently either ...Alcázar of Seville or ...Alcázar de Sevilla or ...Real Alcázar de Sevilla. If there is only one alcázar (=fortified castle) in Seville the Real (=Royal) might be omitted I think. --Achim (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:Sala de la Justicia, Alcázar de Sevilla leaving a redirect. --Achim (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't exist such a sign number officially, ŠJů (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: No objections, overcat. --Achim (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
we do not have a general schema 'Mountain pastures by valley' (what is meant here); Alps here is misleading. Moved everything to Category:Alpine pastures in Vorarlberg, this cat here should be deleted. Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- So I have no problem --Böhringer (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I think this category should be renamed to "Sunset at unidentified locations". Would be easier to find. Hiddenhauser (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Sunsets in unidentified locations" would be better. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't care if it is in or at, as long as sunsets is the first word.--Hiddenhauser (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Support, Category:Unidentified sunrise locations should be treated the same way. --Achim (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't care if it is in or at, as long as sunsets is the first word.--Hiddenhauser (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: No objections, done as suggested. --Achim (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani GTVM92 (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- @GTVM92: You haven't said why this category needs to be discussed. If it's because it had no categories, I just added categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Should apparently be a notification of a done cat move. Nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete (or redirect but there seems no point) wrong spelling, now empty - correct spelling exist as Ww2censor (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
i am a new zealand customer with a few shindaiwa products and i currantly require parts of which i have been informed i will not get until the 8th month 2017 i can assure you that i and a lot of my freinds will not be purchaseing any more shindaiwa or echo products again as you are not interested in backing up your products, warren cain. 122.61.7.173 07:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not a category discussion but a spam only. --ŠJů (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Taken with Nikon D5100 and AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR. As per this discussion, categories which attempt to match every permutation of equipment are both futile and counter-productive (and- if applied consistently- would swiftly become unmaintainable).
It's not much use for the end user either; functionality like this would be better carried out using an AND search. The *only* combinations should be ones that suggest themselves logically and naturally as ways to manage excessively large categories.
As with the discussion above, I'm using this as a test case.
I'd also like to ask whether we should discourage the user in question from creating categories in this style if the current ones are deleted.
Ubcule (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Categories like Category:Taken with Nikon D7100 and AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED + Hoya ND1000 filter + Hoya ND16 filter could be further expanded into Category:Taken with Nikon D7100 and AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED + Hoya ND1000 filter + Hoya ND16 filter in 2014 and so on. <joke off> I think we should delete these kinds of intersections for they undermine our category system. --Achim (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- FWIW, the real category in the linked discussion:-
- is just as utterly ludicrous and overloaded as your "joke" one... I think that says it all! Ubcule (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Category has been deleted because it was empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
category and all its content should be deleted as it contains only pages created by sockpuppet of Aboobackeramani Pasleim (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. Dank an Pasleim!. --Achim (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The name of this category should be in English per COM:LP. AFBorchert (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lots of sub-categories in Sinhalese script as well, and Google translate is of little help:
- බුද්ධාගම (Redirect to Category:Buddhism?)
- බුදු දහම (also redirect to Category:Buddhism?)
- නිවන ("Brigade" ??)
- රහතන් වහන්සේ (Redirect to Category:Arahant or Category:Arahants?)
- බුදු සසුන ("Is anyone" ??)
- භික්ෂූහූ (Redirect to Category:Buddhist monks?)
- නිවන ("Brigade" ??)
- බුදු දහම (also redirect to Category:Buddhism?)
I have no idea. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- This system of categories contains only three files, all of which look like copyright violations to me. Once the files are deleted, the categories can be deleted as well. --rimshottalk 21:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty, after the files have been deleted as copyright violations. --rimshottalk 20:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
empty category 47.150.89.223 21:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Kept, maintenance category. --Achim (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Please delete this category, empty, not used Minoo (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Please delete Category:Trophies of Association football in Austria, because it is a duplicate. Category:Trophies of association football of Austria should be sufficient. Froztbyte (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ich weiß nicht, weshalb meine bereits früher angelegte Kategorie durch eine erst später angelegte Kategorie ersetzt werden soll? Aber meinetwegen sollen die Löschfreaks ihre Freude darin finden... --Steindy (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, why you want two categories for the same subject. I don't care about the name of the category, but I think that the naming convention should be identical among similar categories. In this case, the Category:Trophies of association football of Austria follows the other names used under Category:Trophies of association football by country. Category:Trophies of Association football in Austria don't, because it uses "in" instead of "of". Froztbyte (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Muss nicht gelöscht werden. Redirect, weil die Cat ein paar Jahre alt ist und verlinkt sein könnte. --Achim (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, why you want two categories for the same subject. I don't care about the name of the category, but I think that the naming convention should be identical among similar categories. In this case, the Category:Trophies of association football of Austria follows the other names used under Category:Trophies of association football by country. Category:Trophies of Association football in Austria don't, because it uses "in" instead of "of". Froztbyte (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Kept as redirect. --Achim (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This category should be moved to "Octopus dishes of Italy", and I doubt it requires any discussion; but instead of simply doing it I prefer to present this issue to discussion so that people working on Italian cuisine may participate at the decision-making process. E4024 (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ok for me.--Civa61 (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would say "go for it", because all the similar pages carry a name like that. Is there an obligation that an admin or someone special should close these discussions? This one needs to be closed. --E4024 (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Non-admins can close these discussions: see Commons:Categories for discussion#Closing a discussion for info. If you do not have the ability to move the category, you can ask someone to do it for you after the discussion has run its course (that's two weeks, according to the link above). --Auntof6 (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Octopus dishes of Italy by Civa61. Please be sure to close discussion after you take action. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
German, should be renamed to Category:Siam Park City Railway matching en:Siam Park City Railway. Achim (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I have created this category at a state of a not yet very experienced user and see absolutely no problem to move it like proposed. Thanks a lot for the information before
Joachim Lutz (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Joachim, ist kein Problem. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Moved via COM:CDC. --Achim (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
From my point of view useless redirect Robby (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Robby: The redirect was automatically created when I decided to rename the category to Category:Amos C. Brown. I'm perfectly fine with deleting the redirect. Funcrunch (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- This seems like a perfectly legitimate redirect to me. What's the problem? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- The issue was that this category was displayed (at the moment I suggested the discussion) as a subcategory of Category:Amos C. Brown - which is no longer the case - so by now I see no problem in keeping this redirect despite it's in my opinion quite reduced added value.Robby (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- This seems like a perfectly legitimate redirect to me. What's the problem? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Piazza Bellini (Palermo) Waldgang (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Revoked, created in error. --Achim (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
please delete this category it is a duplicate (typing mistake) of Category:Roads numbered 480 Robby (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. In the future, Robby, if you make a typo like this, just use {{bad name|Roads numbered 480}}. There's no need for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
category named in coherently as to other similar categories, it was moved to Category:Roads numbered 424 all content was as well moved there. Robby (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. In the future, Robby, if you make a typo like this, just use {{bad name|Roads numbered 424}}. There's no need for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
merge Category:Peitav_Synagogue & Category:Sinagoga Peitavas ielā (Riga)? or make clear what the difference between those two objects is. Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be better to merge these two categories Avi1111 (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ulf Heinsohn: as the creator of the other cat. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- What is the preferred name? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I have merged Category:Sinagoga Peitavas ielā (Riga) to Category:Peitav_Synagogue and redirected the first. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Created with a mis-spelling of the Genus name. Should be deleted as now corrected to "Capys" ACCassidy (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Accassidy: This kind of thing doesn't require discussion: you can just tag the category with the {{Bad name}} template. I've done that for you, so an admin will probably delete this category soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I created it accidentally two days ago, not knowing the correct name of the event. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. In the future, Jim.henderson, you can just use {{Bad name|2017‑01 Her Girl Friday+Lenny Editathon}} if you make such a mistake. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Demographic maps of the Ottoman Empire. Zoupan (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Moved. Proper capitalization doesn't required discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 07:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now. grendel|khan 10:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted, empty. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Inferior when compared to Category:Trams on bridges; the connection to Category:Vehicles in motion seems spurious since in most cases motion or immobility is both irrelevant and unknown. Ditto for other such sibling cats. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Put them in Category:Trams on bridges then. I had not idea that category existed. J 1982 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect Category:Trams crossing bridges to Category:Trams on bridges, and place those images of obviously moving trams in Category:Vehicles in motion? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I like that idea! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Trams on bridges. Those obviously moving trams also placed in Category:Trams in motion and its subcategories. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This category doesn't make grammatical sense. "Wearing boys in winter"? What are they wearing? Mjrmtg (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Move content to Category:Boys except items that are already in a boys category. This cat is categorized in categories related to clothing, but most of the images aren't good illustrations of clothing. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 06:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files have been recategorized. grendel|khan 04:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: empty category after > 2 weeks. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
empty category Robby (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose as the category is no longer empty Robby (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Let's wait, I tagged the image for missing permission. --Achim (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, empty (again). --rimshottalk 22:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect name. Correct is at Category:Genoa Cristoforo Colombo Airport Takeaway (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Does Genoa only have one airport? Most areas, even those much smaller, have more than one. Kalbbes (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- The panoramio file that you had put in there was for the Cristoforo Colombo Airport per its location coordinates. I have placed it in the correct category in the meantime. Genoa only has one airport. Instead of deletion, the category can also be changed into a redirect. - Takeaway (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, then the category should be deleted I think. A redirect would mean that other airports in the area, if someone posted a pic of one, would be forced into the international airport cat. Kalbbes (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- It seems to be the only airport of Genoa as I mentioned before, and if you had checked the English Wikipedia article, Cristoforo Colombo Airport also seems to be known colloquially as Genoa Airport. A redirect would seem fitting. - 23:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, then the category should be deleted I think. A redirect would mean that other airports in the area, if someone posted a pic of one, would be forced into the international airport cat. Kalbbes (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- The panoramio file that you had put in there was for the Cristoforo Colombo Airport per its location coordinates. I have placed it in the correct category in the meantime. Genoa only has one airport. Instead of deletion, the category can also be changed into a redirect. - Takeaway (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Genoa Cristoforo Colombo Airport. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Summer Solstice Parade 2015, can be deleted. --ghouston (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your suggestion seems OK to me. The 'Photographs taken of Fremont Solstice parade on 2015-06-20' parent cat '2015-06-20' could be changed to be that of 'Photographs taken on 2015-06-20' I suppose. Acabashi (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Unrelated to Commons naming convention. Media moved to correct category at Category:McDonald's restaurants in Beirut. Takeaway (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Seems logical. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Deletion request: Category name unrelated to Commons naming convention. Media moved to correct Category:McDonald's restaurants in Beirut. Takeaway (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Seems logical. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Should this category be named Category:Irina Galinskaya? It seems to me that "Irina" is the given name, and that this is not a language that puts the surname first. Auntof6 (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say so. I guess the confusion may be from the Russian wikipedia article (ru:Галинская, Ирина Львовна) which used last name, first name for some reason. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Irina Galinskaya. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't understand the purpose. Sub-category has a Europe-category. Zoupan (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. This doesn't make any sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the only regional category in Category:Populated places in Europe. Superfluous. Zoupan (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. The closest thing is Category:Populated places in the Catalan Countries but that is comprised of places that have something in common (language) and no entire countries. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Rename Category:Law-related maps of the world as per parent. Zoupan (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree Sémhur (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)- Support --Auntof6 (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Law-related maps of the world. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This category seems to be about getting money back after a purchase (whether coins or banknotes), but its name leaves it open to confusion. Can anyone thing of a solution? Category:Change (commerce) ? Subcategory Category:Modification should be removed. Themightyquill (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. --Benzoyl (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Changing by Benzoyl. Please remember to close discussions if you take action. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Any reason not to rename to Category:Kongo Central? The province was renamed in 2015. Leave a redirect, of course. Themightyquill (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- We should use whatever the current name is and, yes, keep a redirect. If not too much trouble, it would also be good to take care of Wikipedia articles and categories that link to this cat using a template, such as en:Category:Kongo Central. The answer there might be to just remove the Commons template, because the sidebar links to the Commons category defined in Wikidata. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Could please someone do this? I don't know how to remove Commons template and so on. The province is definitely called Kongo Central now.--Grullab (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Kongo Central, fixed commons template on wikipedia, added "Bas-Congo" to description. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Given that "piscina" means "(swimming) pool" in Spanish and Portuguese, what kind of images would you expect to me miscategorized here? I suggest a move to Category:Piscina, Turin. Themightyquill (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Or Piscina (Italy) as well as similar categories of Italy...--Threecharlie (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support: move as suggested and make this one a dab page. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Piscina, Italy would be better. As a matter of fact, Piscina means swimming pool in Italian, too. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
PS Themightyquill: Piscina, Turin wouldn't be good because Piscina is not an hamlet of Turin but a municipality in the former province of Turin (now metropolitan city). For example Superga is part of the municipality of Turin but Piscina is not.
- Piscina, Italy would be better. As a matter of fact, Piscina means swimming pool in Italian, too. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Piscina, Italy. While moving photos, I also discovered Category:Piscinas and moved that to Category:Piscinas, Italy. Dab page created at Category:Piscina. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
There is no difference to Category:Language-neutral schemes recognisable. (Reported by User:Tostman on COM:VP.) The term "virgin" is also very unlucky for this. ↔ User: Perhelion 23:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Perhelion and Tostman: Is there a difference between both of these and Category:Language-neutral diagrams ? Perhaps we can erase both "schemes" categories. At least, we could use the term Category:Schemas so that it joins a category tree. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I'm not sure. In German a "diagram" is a chart, but in English they are probably the same.--Tostman (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, your suspicions are correct - "diagram" in English has a much vaguer meaning that could include a chart or variety of other illustrations. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I'm not sure. In German a "diagram" is a chart, but in English they are probably the same.--Tostman (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved images to Category:Language-neutral diagrams. Same with images in Category:Language-neutral schemes. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Setting aside improper capitalization of the last word, which at the minimum calls for technical rename to lower case, I don't think this category is well defined. It sits only in the WEP category structure tree, no other. I suggest upmerge back to C:WEP. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The last word isn't improperly categorized, it's missing the initial "I". --Auntof6 (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Piotrus Why should it be in the category tree otherwise? It's essentially a user/maintenance category, so it can sub-categorized however. I don't see any advantage of having it as a sub-category of Category:Images, if that's what you mean. Fix the spelling though, definitely. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see this as a user/maintenance category. What purpose does it serve? If the purpose can be defined, it can be properly categoprized in the tree. If not, this is a useless category that should be upmerged and deleted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- It serves whatever purpose the people running the Category:Wikipedia Education Program want it to. User/Project categories don't need to justify their existence to anyone. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Than it should be a hidden category. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed speelling, added HIDDENCAT. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. Currently empty. --grendel|khan 00:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Empty. - Reventtalk 23:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 05:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files have been recategorized. grendel|khan 23:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 05:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out; just contains empty categories which are themselves awaiting deletion. grendel|khan 10:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of format and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 00:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files have been recategorized. grendel|khan 00:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 05:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files recategorized. grendel|khan 04:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted.
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 07:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files have been recategorized. grendel|khan 08:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 07:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files have been recategorized. grendel|khan 08:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 07:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files have been recategorized. grendel|khan 00:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Contained only File:Auschwitz Resistance 280 cropped.jpg (not 278); category seems superfluous Richard 12:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, this can be removed. I tried to find a way to group this pictures as there are cropped and uncropped versions (published in different years) and retouched versions and versions in Auschwitz museum. As we have no access to the scans of those pictures, nor metadata, categorising the reproductions is a bit over the top. Hopefully we swill get high res pictures soon. --Hannolans (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 17:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Empty now; all files recategorized. grendel|khan 08:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 17:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files have been recategorized. grendel|khan 00:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 18:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Empty now; all files recategorized. grendel|khan 08:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 20:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Farsi is incorrect. 47.150.70.205 00:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are right. I apologize for my insensitivity in creating this category four years ago. In my defense, I believe that at the time the word which linked to fa.wikipedia.org from the sidebar of article en:Wikipedia was "Farsi", not "Persian". This category and its children are now and shall forever remain empty, and thus may be safely deleted. — Jeff G. ツ 17:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
User category asked to be deleted by user. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Farsi is incorrect. 47.150.70.205 00:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are right. I apologize for my insensitivity in creating this category four years ago. In my defense, I believe that at the time the word which linked to fa.wikipedia.org from the sidebar of article en:Wikipedia was "Farsi", not "Persian". This category and its children are now and shall forever remain empty, and thus may be safely deleted. — Jeff G. ツ 17:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
User category, requested deletion by user. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Persian Wikipedia Screenshots is correct title 47.150.70.205 00:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 17:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Persian Wikipedia screenshots, to match parent category. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Files transferred by User:Jeff G. from Persian Wikipedia is correct 47.150.70.205 00:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are right. I apologize for my insensitivity in creating this category four years ago. In my defense, I believe that at the time the word which linked to fa.wikipedia.org from the sidebar of article en:Wikipedia was "Farsi", not "Persian". This category and its children are now and shall forever remain empty, and thus may be safely deleted. — Jeff G. ツ 17:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
User category, requested deletion by user. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Persian glyphs is correct title 47.150.70.205 00:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 17:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Moving to Category:Persian glyphs. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Persian pronunciation of names is correct 47.150.70.205 00:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 17:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved to Category:Persian pronunciation of names. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
This category describes a service; not a physical line. The parent en.wp article was redirected to the current franchise holder in 2010. I've recategorized the various trains according to the actual physical lines they were on; I think this category can be safely deleted. Category:North TransPennine should just redirect to Category:TransPennine Express. Mackensen (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - It was on my long-forgotten to-do list. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree, it's one of those categories that doesn't add value or fit with the other line categories. It's parent Category:North TransPennine (which only contains stations) and sister Category:Trains on the South TransPennine ought to go to. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've been looking at the South TransPennine trains (many of which are probably North TransPennine services, but never mind) and run into a problem. File:185102 Castleton East Junction.jpg is emblematic. The original author has given a detailed description, but the description doesn't make sense. Why would a First TransPennine Express train be on the Calder Valley Line at all? TPE trains ran on the Huddersfield Line. I looked up the timetable for the period and the 10:42 Sunday Newcastle to Manchester Airport stopped at Huddersfield and Dewsbury. I don't see how it winds up at Castleton East Junction unless I badly misunderstand where that is or there was some diversion. There's about 30 of these images. Edit: at least for the 2006 images there were weekend diversions. Mackensen (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mackensen: Did you want to move/sort the categories in Category:North TransPennine so that we can redirect it and close this discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Category:Trains on the North TransPennine deleted. Category:North TransPennine redirected to Category:TransPennine Express. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
What has Stereoscopy to do with the Kinetic depth effect? The Kinetic depth effect is a "Monocular cue". There may be very well be examples who use both "Stereoscopy" and the "Kinetic depth effect", but the two files currently in this Cat are monocular. Jahobr (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Stereoscopic 3D files (wiggle) work monocular too but it has commonly even stereoscopy in its name. I think kinetic depth images as well as stereo wiggle images work with at least 2 different images instead of a single image therefore they are still some kind of stereo images. --Tochni (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- I do not agree. The question is: do you have a separate image for each eye? If yes, it is stereoscopic. If you can perceive the 3d-effect with one eye only it is a “monocular clue”. I recommend the article w:en:Depth perception, which explains the difference “Monocular cues” and “Binocular cues”. w:en:Stereoscopy is an illusion-method to employ w:en:Stereopsis, which is one of the binocular depth perception cues.
- "Stereoscopic 3D files (wiggle)" are named like that because you can simulate w:en:Parallax-3D (a monoptic effect) by flipping between the two images that were originally intended for two eyes (Stereoscopic). This re-purposing of stereoscopic images is a "hack" to get some use out of this images when displaying them on a 2D-Monitor. (By your logic every movie ever made is stereoscopic because they all have several images.) --Jahobr (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Jahobr: there is a precise definition of monoscopic vs. stereoscopic depth cues, which is explained in the Wikipedia article he linked. Categorization should follow the correct definitions of the terms, and any additional connections (to facilitate navigation and match potential expectations from users) can be made via {{Cat see also}}. --Waldir talk 13:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Tochni: Further thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- OK, change it if you like. --Tochni (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Done. The category is now Category:Kinetic depth effect and categorized under Category:Depth perception. --Waldir talk 23:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Counter-productive intersection of two arbitrary categories. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/01/Category:Taken with Nikon D5100 and AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR for more details. -Ubcule (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No need of this kind of intersecting. --Achim (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
This kind of category should not exist on Commons. First it is not neutral and does not respect the neutrality of point of view. And then it would result in the creation of other categories of this kind ("Turkish (or other countries) terrorism") and endless discussions
And what kind of categories should be added to this pictures (for example / see also)? I think that Commons should not be a place of war of opinion, so it is better to stop creating these categories.
Wikipedia commons is intended to store documents and no to have this kind of discussion.--Ghybu (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep We may rename it as PKK terrorism. WM is neutral in the sense of being objective, not blind or stupid. We all know that not all Kurds are terrorists or PKK propagandists, thank God. --E4024 (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per user:Ghybu. This is an offensive and racist categorization.--Gomada (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 21:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This kind of category should not exist on Commons. First it is not neutral and does not respect the neutrality of point of view. And then it would result in the creation of other categories of this kind ("Turkish (or other countries) terrorism") and endless discussions
And what kind of categories should be added to this pictures (for example / see also)? I think that "Commons" should not be a place of war of opinion, so it is better to stop creating these categories.
Wikimedia Commons is intended to store documents and no to have this kind of discussion.
Moreover these attacks were not claimed by the PKK (see: w:en:February 2016 Ankara bombing and w:en:March 2016 Ankara bombing). So this category must be empty--Ghybu (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Info: I protected Category:PKK terrorism (2016) fully for 1 week because of edit warring. --Achim (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)- Keep Ask me what PKK terrorism is. I "still" live (or survive) in Turkey. --E4024 (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- That hardly makes your opinion NPOV, E4024. There's no reason for you to be neutral, but there is good reason for commons to be neutral. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral between killers and victims? Don't count on me please. --E4024 (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- This category serves as a container for Category:February 2016 Ankara bombing and Category:March 2016 Ankara Bombing. Although their relationship is unclear PKK and TAK are not identical as Ghybu pointed out. Therefore I suggest to keep this cat moving it (without redirect) to Category:TAK terrorism (2016) or similar because the TAK has claimed resposibility for these bombings. --Achim (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is a discussion going on: We do not create other categories of this kind without the end of this discussion.
- If category should be created, I propose Category:Kurdish-Turkish conflict (2015-present) on the model of English wikipedia. And this category has been renamed to Category:PKK terrorism (2016) (same on wikidata) without discussion!--Ghybu (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- PS: I also left a message to Gomada about this discussion and the behavior of this user: See (cross-wiki on Kurdish and Armenian Genocide articles): [1] (es), [2] (en), [3] (fr) and on ca.wikipedia ([4] and [5]). He doesn't want the deletion of this category but he says the same thing as me here?!--Ghybu (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- PS2: Should we also create the category "Category:People executed by the Turkish army"? I am sure that the parents of this child are also suffering--Ghybu (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- This category serves as a container for Category:February 2016 Ankara bombing and Category:March 2016 Ankara Bombing. Although their relationship is unclear PKK and TAK are not identical as Ghybu pointed out. Therefore I suggest to keep this cat moving it (without redirect) to Category:TAK terrorism (2016) or similar because the TAK has claimed resposibility for these bombings. --Achim (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral between killers and victims? Don't count on me please. --E4024 (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- That hardly makes your opinion NPOV, E4024. There's no reason for you to be neutral, but there is good reason for commons to be neutral. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Per user Ghybu and Themightyquill. There is not an international norm which categorize people/organisations as terrorist, but there are organisations/point of views which categorize/label as terrorist. Since we are creating a neutral platform, we can not accept such categorization. P.S. user:E4024 is blocked on en.Wikipedia because of his nationalistic contributions. It's clear from his contributions how much he is offensive against minorities in turkey such as armenians, kurds etc.--Gomada (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Info:So User:Ghybu called in his or her neutral and objective friend Gomada and we are having an intellectually high level discussion here: Not only about the category but also about user E4024. At present I am watching to see if any administrative action will be taken against this mobilization, lack of assuming goodwill, personal attacks etc. Later I will reply to the questions, claims, and maybe also the personal comments. Now let me continue with some constructive work in Commons. See you. --E4024 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Mobilization" of one person :) what I reported here. You act on several wiki: so the discussion doesn't stop here. It is useful that others users know this.
In your comments you will not stop talking about yourself and your feelings (cf. Your answers on this and related topics). So don't be surprised that we are starting to take a serious interest in it.--Ghybu (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Mobilization" of one person :) what I reported here. You act on several wiki: so the discussion doesn't stop here. It is useful that others users know this.
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 21:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This category may be deleted (it is empty), as the correct is: Category:Polyhedra, Collections of Matemateca IME-USP Joalpe (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have tagged it with the {{Empty page}} template, so an admin will probably delete it soon. For future reference, you could have used that template instead of starting a discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Neutral point of view means we should not single out countries. However, executed people (there are so many of them with images here) are only categorized on a "country" basis for Turkey (this cat), Ottoman Empire (its predecessor), Soviet Union, Russia (Soviet Union's predecessor and successor in a sense), People's Republic of China, and somehow Switzerland. Don't we "like" these countries? (Not asking to the creator of this very cat.) I know very well that many people have been executed in the United States but I cannot see a category for that country (only as an example). We should either make this category for all the countries with an execution record (What happened during the French revolution, did they not execute anybody?) or for none. Take this discussion also for the above-mentioned countries' relevant categories, please. E4024 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Category:People executed by the Ottoman Empire
- Category:Polish people executed by the Russian Empire
- Category:Polish people executed by the Soviet Union
- Category:People executed by China
- Category:People executed by the Republic of China
- Category:People executed by the People's Republic of China
- Category:People executed by Switzerland
- Sometimes you make a subcategory just to get a lot of files out of a main category. That doesn't mean you need a category for every possibility. I'm not saying that's how this should be handled, just adding this point to the discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree with Auntof6. If there are sufficient images/categories to create Category:People executed by Country X, then go for it. Creating a bunch of empty categories, however, doesn't make sense. That said, I'm not convinced we should be categorizing people by the cause of their death at all, unless the actual death is in the image. See my comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Deaths by cause. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is strange that the Category:People executed by the United States in EN:WP does not have a "proper" Commonscat; there are several articles there with pictures of people in orange uniforms, such as Danny Rolling, the first and only person I looked up with a random scanning. Now I wonder how many others there may be... Maybe we should also be discussing Category:Death penalty in the United States --E4024 (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Now it does: Category:People executed by the United States. Can we close discussion now? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- IMHO you can close it any time you wish. I made a point and I see that I had some reason to do so. Thanks for your kind work. --E4024 (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Close as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 05:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
On further consideration, given that we have "Videos of topic" and "Animations of topic" (for example, Category:Videos of fire and Category:Animations of fire), this should be renamed to "Animations of male masturbation" rather than deleted. grendel|khan 18:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Animations of male masturbation. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 06:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of media type and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 07:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
On further consideration, given that we have "Videos of topic" and "Animations of topic" (for example, Category:Videos of fire and Category:Animations of fire), this should be renamed to "Animations of ejaculation" rather than deleted. grendel|khan 18:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Animations of ejaculation. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of format and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 18:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
On further consideration, given that we have "Videos of topic" and "Animations of topic" (for example, Category:Videos of fire and Category:Animations of fire), this should be renamed to "Animations of human sexuality" rather than deleted. grendel|khan 17:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support move to Category:Animations of human sexuality, same style for the sub-category. I can't believe we have 46 separate animations of male masturbation, but that's another issue. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Animations of human sexuality - Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of format and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 00:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of format and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 00:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of format and topic; doesn't really add anything. Solely used to categorize videos of men masturbating; this seems to be the root of the giant wad of categories I've been nominating this month. --grendel|khan 01:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- This category currently contains Videos of sexuality by format, it could in the future contains other themes sorted by format.
- Before this category, we had directly in Category:Videos by format the following categories:
- Videos of ejaculation by format (3 C)
- Videos of male masturbation by format (1 C)
- GIF videos of sexuality (1 C, 10 F)
- Ogv videos of sexuality (2 C, 15 F)
- The issue is as this stage, the Videos by format category is only to sort between direct Ogg Vorbis files, Webm containers and animated GIF.
- Instead the category was used to offer redundant subjects.
- As such, the bunch of categories <format> videos of <subject> subjects could be sorted in a root category.
- There are plans to expand the category to categorize other media using a bunch of formats like steam engines, solar eclipses and running.
- The goal will then be to answer questions like "Is there an animation for this theme?", ie "what other formats exist for that subject?".
- --Dereckson (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- It was created in 2015 and has seen zero use since then, apart from by the movement to put videos of men masturbating directly under as many generic categories as possible. The tools have improved; you can use the in-this-category-and widget. There's no use for this category at this point, in theory (the existence of the widget) or in practice (the last two-ish years).
- Those other categories should have been deleted, not further categorized; they're currently up for discussion along with this one. grendel|khan 19:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Delete, along with sub-categories. I've long supported a separation of format categories from content. Otherwise we'll end up with Category:JPEG images of X for everything. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Okay I can support that: if we delete first 'Videos of male masturbation by format' etc., we can then delete Videos by subject and format. --Dereckson (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Those other categories should have been deleted, not further categorized; they're currently up for discussion along with this one. grendel|khan 19:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Needs to be changed to Persian pronunciation because Persian is the correct name for the language. Farsi is incorrect. 47.150.70.205 00:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Support Change of category - all instances of farsi seen in category titles must be changed to Persian as Persian is the correct name in English for the language of Iran. --47.150.70.205 00:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 17:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I disagree that Farsi is incorrect, but Persian does seem to be the preferred term in English. Move for the sake of consistency, along with other examples. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Persian pronunciation and left redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Request renaming the following categories:
- Category:UConn Huskies basketball to Category:Connecticut Huskies basketball
- Category:UConn Huskies men's basketball to Category:Connecticut Huskies men's basketball
- Category:UConn Huskies basketball players to Category:Connecticut Huskies basketball players
- Category:UConn Huskies women's basketball players to Category:Connecticut Huskies women's basketball players
- Category:UConn Huskies women's basketball to Category:Connecticut Huskies women's basketball
- Category:UConn Huskies men's soccer to Category:Connecticut Huskies men's soccer
- Category:UConn Huskies men's soccer players to Category:Connecticut Huskies men's soccer players
Request merging the following two categories:
- * Category:UConn Huskies men's basketball players merged into Category:Connecticut Huskies men's basketball players
Currently categories for University of Connecticut athletic teams are named inconsistently; some are under UConn Huskies (such as basketball and soccer) and some are under Connecticut Huskies (such as American football). It would make it easier to find content if the categories were named consistently. An RfC on English Wikipedia (see link) reached consensus that categories over there would use "Connecticut Huskies" instead of "UConn Huskies". It would make sense to follow the same convention here. –Grondemar 05:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Shouldn't they be renamed to "University of Connecticut Huskies..."? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Valid question, but from English wikipedia, it looks like "Connecticut Huskies" is an accepted formal name. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- In the US, college sports teams are commonly abbreviated as (Short name) (Team nickname). That is the standard practice on English Wikipedia and appears to be the practice on Commons as well; see the note on Category:College basketball teams. –Grondemar 02:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Valid question, but from English wikipedia, it looks like "Connecticut Huskies" is an accepted formal name. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support The Wikipedia RfC was long and contentious; I'm surprised (but thankful) that I missed it.
- What should be less contentious is the value in alignment between Wikipedia and Commons. One can imagine situations (categories solely relating to images) in which we might prefer that Commons reaches the decision, and other projects should follow suit. However, these categories are broader than just images. While I might have slightly preferred UConn over Connecticut, that's water over the dam and was a close call. We would need an exceedingly strong argument in favor of UConn in connection with Commons to justify using a different naming convention in the two projects. None occur to me, so I support aligning the Commons category names with the Wikipedia names.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Connecticut Huskies basketball. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. (Maybe a vague overlap with a vintage-porn category?) --grendel|khan 18:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Emptied out as of now; all files recategorized. grendel|khan 06:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 18:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Remove supercat See also Commons:Village_pump#Surfeit_of_masturbation_videos.2C_still.
- Grendel raises a good point there. This intersection categorization is ludicrous (and see User talk:Cirt for a bunch more from the same author). Let's be upfront, the problem isn't this category so much, as its location in the parent cat Category:Videos of the 2000s. Now if Commons is to host sexually explicit material for its "educational" aspects (See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/07#Educational_value_of_masturbation_videos) then that's one thing - but why tie them into the main category tree? I see Grendel's point here as being that the nav path from Category:Cute kitten videos of the 2000s to Category:Videos of the 2000s and then to here is not one that many Commons readers would happily accept. And I would agree with them. In particular, why is this the only content-themed subcategory of 2000s? Was it a particularly fruitful decade?
- There is a problem here, and it's bigger than CfD. There are two problems here: should the content exist, and should the content be linked like this into the main caegorization tree? Personally I cannot see objections to the first getting very far (we've been there before!) but I don't see any justification for the second. Whatever "walled garden" approach we might invent instead, Grendel is right here and we should move from situations like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nobody looking for a video of someone masturbating is at all likely to care when it was filmed. Seriously. - Reventtalk 12:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- <sigh> It's tempting to see that as a simple answer, but I'm not sure we can even go that far. See Category:1920s videos of male masturbation. There has to be some value to film historians in a cat of "1920s porn", even if we'd both agree here that 2000s vs 2010s is indeed a "[not] at all likely to care when". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- We have Category:Historic pornographic videos; I think that, or categories under it, would fit the bill nicely. grendel|khan 18:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This cat is now empty, and I have tagged it with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 06:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 20:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Move to Category:Bosnian War as per common name and Bosnian War. Same with sub-categories. Zoupan (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: the proposed cat already exists as a redirect to this cat, so the redirect would need to be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Moved to Category:Bosnian War. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
geboortelijst 1931 van st baafs vijve 2A02:A03F:1258:F900:DDE:3228:49D4:B2D3 14:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Kunt u meer uitleggen? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
No further discussion. Keeping. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect name. Media recategorised to correct @ Category:Rivers of India. Takeaway (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest redirecting, because this is probably a common mistake. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment I'm not in favour of changing this into a redirect because then uploaders who mistakenly choose this category will surely never get to see all the subcategories in Category:Rivers of India. It also contained just one file, placed in it by the same user who started the category. If this had been a common mistake, the category would have included many more files that would have been placed in there when it was still a redlink category. - Takeaway (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with Auntof6, this should be a redirect. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Capankajsmilyo seems to be creating more parallel categories such as Category:Animals in India, Category:Birds in India, Category:Pigeons in India, Category:Actresses of India and Category:Birds in Tamil Nadu. - Takeaway (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- There are many redirects like this. This should be a redirect.--ProfessorX (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Deleted by Daphne Lantier while still under discussion. Unfortunately, I don't see a clear consensus here on whether a redirect is necessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Done: redirected. Daphne Lantier 07:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The reason why I put this category for discussion is because the whole category has a list of Gatwick Express trains and they have nothing to do with the Southern (train operating company). I am planning to rename this category to Category:British Rail Class 442s of Gatwick Express. --Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. As I understand it, Gatwick Express was never an independent TOC but rather a brand or a franchise. I think it's correct to say that this is Southern rolling stock for the period in question. Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - While I must correct Mackensen in that Gatwick Express was at one point a separate TOC, during that time it did not operate any 442s. Gatwick Express has only operated 442s since it became a part of the Southern franchise (which is in turn now part of Govia Thameslink Railway).
- To clarify, 442s should be categorised thusly by TOC:
- 1988 - 1996: Category:British Rail Class 442s of British Rail
- 1996 - 2007: Category:British Rail Class 442s of South West Trains
- 2008 - 2015: Category:British Rail Class 442s of Southern
- 2015 - present: Category:British Rail Class 442s of Govia Thameslink Railway (apparently we haven't got any of those yet)
- -mattbuck (Talk) 01:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mattbuck: Something of a side issue, but I understood Gatwick Express to be a sub-brand of National Express from 1996-2007. Are you speaking of 1994-1996? Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mackensen: Gatwick Express trains were run by National Express from 1996 to 2008, that is true. However as it was its own TOC, it gets its own category Category:Trains of Gatwick Express, and during that franchise they did not operate 442s - they had 460s and before that locomotive hauled stock. I listed SWT above as they were operating the 442s, before they were displaced by newly-built 444s. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mattbuck: I have found some images forCategory:British Rail Class 442s of Govia Thameslink Railway and I have sorted them in. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Can we close this now? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Mattbuck: I have found some images forCategory:British Rail Class 442s of Govia Thameslink Railway and I have sorted them in. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Mackensen: Gatwick Express trains were run by National Express from 1996 to 2008, that is true. However as it was its own TOC, it gets its own category Category:Trains of Gatwick Express, and during that franchise they did not operate 442s - they had 460s and before that locomotive hauled stock. I listed SWT above as they were operating the 442s, before they were displaced by newly-built 444s. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mattbuck: Something of a side issue, but I understood Gatwick Express to be a sub-brand of National Express from 1996-2007. Are you speaking of 1994-1996? Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done, Per Mattbuck, Gatwick Express operated its trains with the Southern franchise
obsolete category Vysotsky (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of time and topic; doesn't really add anything. --grendel|khan 21:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
This discussion suggests that all files of this category violate copyrights, as the concerned Swiss court ruling does not apply worldwide (especially not in the US, where the files are stored); many files can be retained by correcting the license (e.g. pd-old or pd-official, where possible) should be retained, the rest must be deleted. Mecoma (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mecoma: , if certain files should be retained, then the category should stay. If the problem is with certain files that should be deleted, please delete them. You can use Help:VisualFileChange.js to launch a batch deletion if you don't want to do each one at a time. Unless I've misunderstood, though, there's nothing wrong with the category itself. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion continues here: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Switzerland-photo--185.12.129.226 20:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- The DR on the template resulted in a keep. Any reason not to close this discussion, Mecoma ? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Closed as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Image need individual status review per -s:Page:Big Bend.djvu/130 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @ShakespeareFan00: I don't understand. Can you please explain further? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Kept, as two files seem to have survived the review. --rimshottalk 19:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Underneath this category, there are categories for 191 countries, f.ex Category:Association_football_players_from_Norway. Underneath this category there is a further category tree where all men are categorised while women seems to be categories in a tree underneath this one again in f.ex Category:Women's association football players from Norway and so on. This category contains a mirrored tree to the one above, only prefixed with "Woman's". Either there should be a similar sublevel for men or the sublevel for women should be removed. There is no reason to treat men as the general case and women as a special case. TommyG (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- This also seems to be an issue which permeates other sports category trees too. F.ex Category:Sportspeople from Norway and Category:Sportswomen from Norway (and the somewhat mind boggling Category:LGBT sportspeople from Norway although this isn't quite the same issue) TommyG (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think in a situation like this (as opposed to something like, say, journalism) where there actually is a distinction between the men's and women's sports, that we should reflect that distinction in the category tree (and not, as was stated above, treat men's as the 'default case'). Also, the current situation creates a kind of overcat for men, where they are in both the parent category and a child in the 'by position' subtrees. - Reventtalk 00:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with these concerns. We should have male and female "sportspeople" categories. I also think that we should have a "Businessmen" category, just like we have a "Businesswomen" cat. If not, we should delete the "Businesswomen" cat and put every business person into the Category:Businesspeople. (Oh, yes, all these issues are inter-related, nothing is irrelevant here. :-) Best. --E4024 (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Proposal accepted: Separate male and female categories of sposrtspeople are being built. It will take a bit but the thing is on its way. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Need to separate things: If this File:StuffedBeefandCheeseSopapilla2.jpg and this other File:Sopaipillas chilenas.jpg are in the same category, either something is wrong with the categorization or time has come to separate things. As I know more on Chilean cuisine (Mendoza, Argentina is quite similar in many aspects) than the other regional ones, I wish to make a call on colleagues from that part of the world, or others who khow the regional cuisines to look into this matter. IMHO, at least the "Chilean sopaipillas" seem to deserve their own category. (Other than the differences between the varieties of this food, "sopaipillas" is almost a sign of cultural identity for the Chileans. Am I exaggerating?) E4024 (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- The main difference I see in those two images is that the stuffed beef and cheese one has been turned into a dish, and the other one is plain. It's a sopaipilla whether or not it's stuffed or had other preparation. In other words, some of the images show sopaipilla dishes and some show plain sopaipillas. It's like the difference between eating a tortilla (the bread kind) plain or making a burrito or taco with it: those would look very different on a plate, but there's a tortilla in both. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, but the Chilean sopaipillas are not things that can be stuffed with anything, they are plain, no vacuum inside. You can "place on top of them" -for example- "pebre", like in this picture (File:Sopaipillas campus San Joaquín 01.JPG), and eat. "Stuffing" requires another variety. Anyway, not my area... --E4024 (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with sub-categorizing by region if the dish is notably different. Similarly, enchilada means something quite different in Mexico than it does in El Salvador (where it resembles a Mexican tostada). - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, but the Chilean sopaipillas are not things that can be stuffed with anything, they are plain, no vacuum inside. You can "place on top of them" -for example- "pebre", like in this picture (File:Sopaipillas campus San Joaquín 01.JPG), and eat. "Stuffing" requires another variety. Anyway, not my area... --E4024 (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: Created sub-category named Category:Sopaipillas (Chile). Ruthven (msg) 06:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This category is to promote gay stereotypes; I don't see why this is necessary. Gay men do not wear pink any more often than straight men (in fact outside of gay pride parades gay men are actually LESS likely to wear pink than straight men). If we have a category for pink, we might as well create categories for other colors as well. --Andros 1337 (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The category just carries out that there are pink colors used by LGBT people (maybe only in parades, so what?). Useful forking, because we have so much of these photographs with pink cloting uses by LGBT people. The reason given above is a bit strange. Signed, --Mattes (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC), creator
- Keep it, but the name is unclear. Category:Pink clothing as LGBT symbol or something like that? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Andros 1337 and Mattes: Would that work for you? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- As of now, my vote still stands. This is overcategorization and promotion of gay stereotypes. Andros 1337 (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Andros 1337 and Mattes: Would that work for you? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep it, but the name is unclear. Category:Pink clothing as LGBT symbol or something like that? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Andros 1337: 1) Overcategorization refers to including the same file in parent and child categories. You're suggesting this is too specific, but it has 18 photos. 2) If it's being used consciously as a LGBT symbol by LGBT people, then at best, you can claim it's promotion of gay stereotypes by those LGBT people, not by commons. No one is suggesting including photos of gay men who happen to be wearing a pink shirt. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment True, we just act as truthful to reality just like Wikipedia. Queer pink clothing not an invention by myself --Mattes (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 06:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Maps of the Ottoman period in the history of the Balkans. Zoupan (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Done: per previous discussion. Ruthven (msg) 06:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
"Lord" is a translation of the arabic word and not the name of this village. Takeaway (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- I expect it's a translation of a Persian word since it's in Iran. Photo was taken here. روستای موالی سفلی. Can anyone help with a phonetic translation? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Mavaluy-e Olya where photo was taken. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Confusing and incomprehensible name 47.150.89.223 04:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Can you specify more? Any suggestions on how to improve?--Ashashyou (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)--Ashashyou (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Merge with Category:Azerbaijani Arabic Alphabet. --47.150.89.223 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Writing is not the same as alphabet. The "alphabet" represents its characters individually, writing is a next level and a new quality, applicating the alphabet. As well as a forest is more than trees and a society is more than people. --ŠJů (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Are you sure that shouldn't be 'abjad' rather than 'abjab'? From en:Azerbaijani language#Writing systems: "The Perso-Arabic Azerbaijani alphabet is an abjad; that is, it does not represent vowels." (Also, 'Perso-Arabic Azerbaijani abjad' seems like a more common name, judging by that article.) grendel|khan 00:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ashashyou: Is there a typo in the category name, as per Grendelkhan ? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Are you sure that shouldn't be 'abjad' rather than 'abjab'? From en:Azerbaijani language#Writing systems: "The Perso-Arabic Azerbaijani alphabet is an abjad; that is, it does not represent vowels." (Also, 'Perso-Arabic Azerbaijani abjad' seems like a more common name, judging by that article.) grendel|khan 00:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ashashyou, Themightyquill, Grendelkhan, and ŠJů: Closed (no consensus on new name or merge) Josh (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no schema here, defining who belongs. Each of the US Armed Forces has a single NCO, their senior NCO. The US Army's senior NCO's official rank is "Sergeant Major of the United States Army". These senior NCOs are important officials. I wrote an article about one of the USCG's senior NCOs. After his retirement he took a gig as Vice President of a shipbuilding firm, the kind of post that would normally go to a senior retired officer. So, it would make sense to have a category just for the Senior NCO. Meanwhile, we have no category like Category:NCOs of the United States Army, or Category:Sergeants of the United States Army. So, let's fix the existing category, give it a schema, that clarifies whether it is only for the most senior NCO, or whether it is for all Sergeant Majors. Geo Swan (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - I beg to differ with @Geo Swan: . There is a schema - This category is meant to be used for images of those individuals who served as en:Sergeant Major of the Army. Images of other Sergeants Major (ie Command SM's etc) belong in Category:United States Army soldiers Gbawden (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, we need explicit schema, where the category has a sentence or two that explicitly says which images belong, and which don't. You seem to be saying you think there is an implicit schema, that is obvious to all smart people. The trouble with "obvious" implicit schema are that not all contributors here are "smart". And, they come from different cultures, speak different languages. Geo Swan (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep It is an appropriate category. Evrik (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Perhaps the description was inadequate at the time of the nomination, but the current one seems reasonable. Sergeant Major of the United States Army is a well-defined concept with a limiting principle. Mackensen (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
There is consensus to keep this category. – BMacZero (🗩) 00:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC) – BMacZero (🗩) 00:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@Reguyla, Atlasowa, and Jasonanaggie: Based on File:20170104 Armed Forces Full Ceremony HD.webm I think this is not a normal video resolution category, the (broken) WEBM belongs to Category:Video_display_resolution_1280_x_720 with a cleanup template. It might be helpful, if you add it as sub-category to Category:Media for cleanup, and if folks trying to debug "Uploaded with videoconvert" accept it as bug report, in that case please say so at the top of the 0x0 category.
–2A03:2267:0:0:C3:D3DA:83C6:7D4C 13:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I'll take a look. It is worth noting that not all 0 x 0 files will have this problem though. With regard to the ogg files, ogg used to be used for sound and video prior to the creation of ogv (video) and oga (audio) so many of the 0 x 0 files are simply audio only and not really visual at all. It's just that they are associated to a "video" format so it's useful to track them with that category. It would be good to get these converted to oga someday to better distinguish them from the videos but we aren't there yet. So I'm not sure adding it to the cleanup category would be appropriate for all of them. Reguyla (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- WEBM audio only exists, but the MIME type was correct (video/webm, about one second of the expected 1:09:00). If you want to handle it with a bot (not counting AWB) just add some info in the category—I stumbled over these new resolution categories when I updated File:111014 NetNeutrality Final.ogv with an archived WH.gov URL. –2A03:2267:0:0:8492:F1D8:D437:C27E 18:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, let me know if you find anymore issues. Reguyla (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- WEBM audio only exists, but the MIME type was correct (video/webm, about one second of the expected 1:09:00). If you want to handle it with a bot (not counting AWB) just add some info in the category—I stumbled over these new resolution categories when I updated File:111014 NetNeutrality Final.ogv with an archived WH.gov URL. –2A03:2267:0:0:8492:F1D8:D437:C27E 18:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Random remark, exhibit A was deleted as bad upload, okay. But I think an image reviewer has upload-by-url rights, I know that YouTube offers webm, I guess that any YT licence trying to trump {{PD-USGov}} is bogus, so is YT a possible source for an upload-by-url rescue? –193.96.224.2 17:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This category was deleted by Nyttend and as far as I can tell any issues here were dealt with. – BMacZero (🗩) 06:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I diffused this cat into Category:1-Butyne and Category:2-Butyne, the only two isomers of butyne that exist. The parent Category:Linear alkynes is pretty small, so I propose up-merging these two specific isomers into that and nuking this intermediate level. DMacks (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- 1) I see that there is a file in the category. 2) Is it possible that there would be media that would pertain to both isomers, or that would be about the concept generally and not about either one specifically? These could be a video, or maybe a graphic showing both. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- 1 was my mistake...trying to figure out where to put that upload of mine was what led me to find this situation, then I forgot to push it into the correct single subcat. I could envision a joint image to compare/contrast the two, but I could likewise just put it in each one's cat. "Put it in the cat for each chemical illustrated" seems common for diagrams having more than one chemical, rather than trying to find a single cat that covers them all. I'm not sure what else would go in just butynes (both isomers). I just checked en:butyne and all other languages via its wikidata, and none of them are anything beyond a disambiguation/index pointer to each separate isomer's actual article. DMacks (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I almost don't remember creating the category, but I approve of this change. I might even suggest going a step further and removing the shell category, to put 1-Butyne and 2-Butyne in Category:Linear alkynes instead. - Jynto (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your "going a step further" sounds exactly like what I was originally proposing:) That is:
| Current | Proposal 1 |
|---|---|
@DMacks and Jynto: In this case, would you redirect Category:Butynes to Category:Linear alkynes, or just delete it? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- @DMacks, Auntof6, Jynto, and Themightyquill: since the last comment almost four years ago nothing has been done about this category. It should be deleted, there is no proper target category it could be redirected to. Wostr (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Category:Butynes. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This should be moved to a plural noun, just like Category:Turkish Americans E4024 (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Or Category:Australians of Turkish descent to match parallel categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill and E4024: 3 years old. Can we do progress here?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Everything else in Category:Ethnic groups in Australia is Category:Australians of X descent. Any reason not to use that format? -- Themightyquill (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024, Estopedist1, and Themightyquill: Moved per nom. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Codes of road signs are not stable, they can change with every new ordinance and are not intelligible and descriptive enough, they are a cipher sui generis. Official descriptive names of the signs would be better for category names to group signs by their kind. ŠJů (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable, especially since at least some of the files don't show their associated number. Are you thinking to leave the same basic category structure here, just with different category names? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- The structure needs not to be so flat, buts it's possible to have a specific category for every type of road sign and possibly for its variants. Some such categories exist already within the standard categorization structure. The discussed subcategories can be renamed from the code-name to the official name of the sign.
- The question is whether to use the original Czech names for category names (they are strictly codified, even though the name can also change from time to time, and can be used as "proper names" sui generis), or to use some universal English names (which can be not the exact translation of the official Czech name and can be not so expectable and reckonable for users who know the official name). E.g. a distiction between "Vodicí tabule", "Vodicí deska", "Směrovací deska" and "Výstražná deska" can be difficult to express by translations. --ŠJů (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Creators of the subcategories are invited to discuss: Clonewayx, 106.69.75.121, 106.68.28.35, 106.68.102.10. --ŠJů (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Btw., Czech regulation uses a space between the initial letter and the number, i.e. A 29, E 2a, not A29, E2a. --ŠJů (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any opposition ŠJů. I guess you can make changes as you see fit? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Thank You for notification. The solution is not simple, some balance between original Czech names and universal English names needs to be found. And also some way how to search signs by the code: e.g. some categorized redirect pages, some table with links etc. Sooner or later, I will try to shift it. Maybe, some constructive discussion upon possible varaints of solution can help. Maybe, the full Czech original name including the code can be used (e.g. Category:P 2 Hlavní pozemní komunikace), but even this solution is not ideal. @Auntof6 and Clonewayx: --ŠJů (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @ŠJů and Podzemnik: it is a really Czech-specific CFD. I hope you find some solution for this long-term CFD. Maybe some hints for standardizing can be finded Category:Road signs by number by country--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: At the moment, the complete abolition of this categorization branch is not enforceable. Primarily, the categorization of traffic signs should be structured according to purpose and meaning. As far as possible, we can strive for compatibility between the two systems and avoid duplication. So far, most of the photos of Czech traffic signs have not yet been categorized in detail - I would leave the final decision on which category naming system will be dominant to the colleague(s) who will embark on this huge work. Both solutions have their pros and cons, which must be compensated in some way. For the time being, it is appropriate to keep this category marked as problematic, with reference to this discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Auntof6, Themightyquill, and Estopedist1: This discussion can be closed, I began work on rebuilding this categorization tree in line with the reasons and intentions presented in this discussion. Similar category names combining numbers with names are used for Australia, Canada and Ireland. Czechia is the first non-English-language country where this system is used. As explained above, i chose exact non-translated Czech official names of the signs, but every such Czech category is standardly wrapped with a parent category with the unified international English name. E.g. Category:A 12b Děti (Czech road sign) has its parent category Category:Children warning road signs in the Czech Republic, whereas unofficial and non-standard signs which do not correspond to the prescribed design A 12b but have the same meaning and purpose are categorized directly in this superior category. The numbers 1 - 9 are supplemented by the prefix zero (01 - 09) due to correct sorting. I still consider to create category redirects from the pure Czech official names (and their obsolete variants) without numbers (for comfortable HotCat categorization) – the category redirects could be also categorized in a category "Road signs in the Czech Republic by name". Also a Wikidata item for every type of sign (one national for every country, and one parent international item for every meaning) should be created prospectively, to enable automatized list outputs. Thank you for your participation in this discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --✗plicit 00:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Suggest rename to 1900s (decade), and doing similar for sibling and child categories ending in two zeros; to avoid confusion with the period 1900-1999. Obviously, this would be wide-reaching, and I cannot tag every category concerned! Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hm, chewing: The first link on top of that page reads Category:20th century. --Achim (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- How about a redirect?199.7.156.141 22:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- from what to where? Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I was thinking 1900s to 1900s (decade), but apparently not thinking too much. They don't have it for w:Category:1900s, and no such cats on WQ nor WS, FWIW.199.7.156.141 17:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- from what to where? Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- As it does on, for example, Category:1980s. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- How about a redirect?199.7.156.141 22:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Would it be enough to add a note to the {{Decade}} template to explain things? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, because peolpe adding a category to an image have no need to see that template. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Good point. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, because peolpe adding a category to an image have no need to see that template. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I just tagged a bunch of similar base categories (e.g. Category:1800s) which further convinced me that this is a good idea. Category:0s could definitely use additional clarity. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- This change would mean changing our many templates that generate decade categories, nav boxes that link to decades, and maybe other things. If we do this change, I think we should turn the existing pages into dab pages. (If left as redirects, we'd probably have the same problem.) I think this change would affect so many different things that we should probably try to publicize this proposal more before taking action. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Don't like that idea. There is the same category structure in en-wiki and a lot of editors used to it. It's quite enough to have a notification & navigation panel. People add often wrong /sometimes completely wrong/ categories. But in's not the reason to make things more complicating for everyone. --Fleur-de-farine (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- If it Category:1900s redirects to Category:1900s (decade), I don't see how it would become a hassle for anyone. If you could be more specific about the potential downsides, I might understand. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- If it's left as a redirect, it wouldn't solve the problem. If someone added Category:1900s thinking that it meant the 100-year span, it would get recategorized to the decade category by the bot that checks redirected categories. Making it a dab page would be better. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- I tried to do this with "Category:1800s fashion (decade)" (now at Category:1800s fashion) and it got deleted (apparently twice): see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Category%3A1800s+fashion+%28decade%29 — Churchh (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. If enwiki uses exactly the same solution. I tend to vote Keep. We almost always follow enwiki solutions because these are often the results of discussions--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- 1900s shouldnt refer to 1900-1999, so no need to change.
- anyone saying 2000s referring to 2000-2999? RZuo (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- 2000s might be different, but in common English usage, saying something happened in the "Seventeen hundreds" refers to 1700-1799, not 1700-1709. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --✗plicit 00:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
(1) Category:Topless and barefoot female is singular: shouldn't it be plural, as in Category:Topless and barefoot females?
(2) I'd also like to see a Category:Topless and barefoot women (as breasts are above feet), or Category:Barefoot and topless women (as "b-" comes before "t-") as a significant subcat of Category:Topless and barefoot females as is the case with:
Category:Female toplessness of which Category:Topless females redirects to, has as subcats
Category:Topless adolescent girls, and
Category:Topless women
- and
Category:Barefoot females has as subcats
Category:Barefoot girls, and
Category:Barefoot women
Category:Topless and barefoot girls would likely be unnecessary, however, as most of the files currently in Category:Topless and barefoot female could go into the proposed woman cat.
Thank you.
199.7.156.141 22:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, and six of the subcats say "women."199.7.156.141 22:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: moot as the category was moved to Category:Topless and barefoot women. --✗plicit 00:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Duas questões:
- "Andrade Corvo" não é um surname mas uma linhagem; a categoria está assim mal nomeada e igualmente mal aplicada: Alguns membros desta linhagem podem até não usar um ou ambos estes apelidos, e, por conseguinte, mesmo os que usam ambos deverão ser categorizados igualmente pelos seus apelidos (esta ressalva aplica-se a quaisquer outras categorias afins).
- É de todo útil categorizar assim no Wikimedia Commons? No caso vertente tratar-se-á apenas do próprio Andrade Corvo, ministro de Fontismo — ou teve descendência que tenha, ou venha a ter, categoria individual no Wikimedia Commons?
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- E mais: Categorização por linhagem cria mais imbróglios do que establece nexos relevantes ao obrigar a distinguir, p. ex., quem se chamar Câmara Pereira por ser da linhagem de Zarco, de quem for apenas Câmara por parte da mãe e Pereira por parte do pai. Mais uma razão para abandonar categorização por linhagem, ou, pelo menos, separá-la completamente da categorização por apelido (e, portanto, reestablecer em Andrade Corvo as categorias "Andrade (surname)" e "Corvo (surname)"). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that "Andrade Corvo" is two surnames, not one, and shouldn't be a surname category. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- 1. Disagree - "Andrade Corvo" é um surname (sobrenome). Uma pessoa chamada "António Santos Costa Silva" pode afirmar que o seu sobrenome é "Santos Costa Silva" e num qualquer documento, no campo destinado ao sobrenome deverão/poderão aparecer os três nomes. Para ser uma linhagem deveria ser classificado como "Andrade Corvo family" ou algo parecido e classificado eventualmente em Category:Families of Portugal.
- 2 Agree - Concordo que seja inútil classificar desta forma na Commons. Em cerca de 63 categorias idênticas, com portugueses, só uma tem 5 elementos (Bordalo Pinheiro (surname)), 13 têm 2 elementos e todas as restante só têm 1 elemento (e não é de esperar que o numero de elementos cresça muito no futuro) - ver [6] e procurar por "(surname)". Disagree - No entanto não creio ser lícito eliminar estas categorias que alguém por uma questão de sistematização decidiu criar no commons. Para isso seria necessária a concordância da comunidade do Commons tanto em relação a sobrenomes Portugueses com de todos os outros países e línguas.
- Nota: Nada disto interfere com a ordem de classificação que deverá ser (para Portugueses) pelo último sobrenome, neste caso "DEFAULTSORT:Corvo, Andrade". --JotaCartas (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. The category is empty and basically can be speedy deleted as "empty". I agree with user:Auntof6 that these double surnames categories should be deleted instantly.--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- For the record, I agree. Delete them all, for the reasons aduced in the o.p. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --✗plicit 00:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Name of category is confusing it is Persian not Farsi 47.150.70.205 00:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 17:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Asian Persian Arabic script or Category:Persian language in Arabic script? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Support move to Category:Persian language in Arabic script. This CfD has been open for a year and has not been closed! --47.156.0.180 00:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think the technical term would be Category:Perso-Arabic script or Category:Perso-Arabic alphabet, but agree that the current name should not be kept. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- to be in the line with parent Category:Arabic script in non-Arabic languages, we should use the name Category:Asian Persian Arabic script--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Arabic script in non-Arabic languages looks best. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- to be in the line with parent Category:Arabic script in non-Arabic languages, we should use the name Category:Asian Persian Arabic script--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: renamed to Category:Asian Persian Arabic script. --✗plicit 00:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
L'identité de ce photographe est Ernest (châteauroux naissances 10/9/1831) 88.141.81.44 23:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ce photographe signe ses cartons E. Appert, ce lien BNF [7] indique qu'il a deux prénoms, il utilise en priorité Eugène. C'est ainsi qu'il est mentionné dans "Répertoire de Photographe parisienss du XIXe siècle" de Franços Boisjoly (non exempt de quelques erreurs) localisé au 24 rue Tatibout, comme la photo que je possède. je ne vois donc pas où est le problème. - Siren-Com (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- PS: je vois où maintenant se situe le problème, pas dans la catégorie (qui peut être effectivement renommée "Eugène Appert" mais dans certains fichier nommés "Ernest Appert" car "E. Appert" est la même initiale et porte à confusion, comme sur le carton de ma photo. Bienn cordialement - Siren-Com (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Finalement j'y perd mon latin. j'ai essayé d'y voir plus clair entre Ernest né en 1831 et Eugène né en 1830, un vrai casse-tête. Ont-il été tous les deux photographes ? Les différentes sources sont discordantes. J'ai apporté le problème sur le Bistro (29/01) de W:fr pour avoir de l'aide, mais je suis circonspect. Dans l'incertitude, je n'ai lus d'opinion. - Siren-Com (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Voir Crimes de la Commune. Deux frères photographes ont fusionné sous la même identité commerciale. Sijysuis (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Finalement j'y perd mon latin. j'ai essayé d'y voir plus clair entre Ernest né en 1831 et Eugène né en 1830, un vrai casse-tête. Ont-il été tous les deux photographes ? Les différentes sources sont discordantes. J'ai apporté le problème sur le Bistro (29/01) de W:fr pour avoir de l'aide, mais je suis circonspect. Dans l'incertitude, je n'ai lus d'opinion. - Siren-Com (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
It is fully French discussion. What is the situation here, @Siren-Com and Sijysuis: ? Enwiki article is under the name en:Ernest Eugène Appert, frwiki has two-person article fr:Eugène et Ernest-Charles Appert--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is a very dark problem... it seems that the two brothers (Ernest and Eugène) worked together in the same photographic studio from 1870 named E.Appert [8] I d'ont know what to do... a single article will be better - Siren-Com (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --✗plicit 00:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
How is this distinct from Category:Flora of the United States? Themightyquill (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Does flora includes things that are not technically plants, such as fungus? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Also, this cat uses the preposition "in", so maybe the images here have to be of things that were actually in the US, not just species that can be found there. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agree because now, most of the cats Plants in xxx are redirect to Flora of xxx. It was not like that some months (years) ago. For me, Flora of was only natural plants and Plants of all the plants, natural or cultivated. But the cats have been merged. So, move on and lets continue. --Tangopaso (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 and Tangopaso: If we were going to make a category for all plants, it would make more sense to use Category:Plantae in the United States, but we don't currently have that category tree (no pun intended) set up. Doing so would be an enormous amount of work with little payoff. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: There are none category:Plantae in... ; it is more simple to use only Plants in... and Flora of....--Tangopaso (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. To be clear, I think the easiest thing is to use Category:Garden plants in X and not categorize anything by Category:Plants in X or Category:Plantae in X. The issue of Plants vs Plantae is whole other discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
To me adding whole plant species categories to the category "Flora of the United States" is a big problem as all species exempt the endemic ones have individuals outside the range of the United States. To me a list of all native species may be in a gallery page but not als a bunch of categories. --Kersti (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Stale discussion. I agree with user:Kersti Nebelsiek. I also see that we have Category:Endemic flora by country. In general, this is very wide (not USA-specific) topic, and should be discussed at some parent category--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --✗plicit 00:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)