Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2020/01
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 2020
Empty category. Solomon203 (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've tagged it with {{Empty page}} to get it deleted.--Kai3952 (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Common Good (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
empty category Quakewoody (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. Empty, was created by an IP. --Achim (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted. To be upmerged to category:Rail vehicles Estopedist1 (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Done: Previous precedence set, upmerge is most appropriate. Upmerging by bot per request. ~riley (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
see Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:PDF maps of the history of Paris Estopedist1 (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussions merged. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
all subcategories to be deleted. The content to be upmerged Estopedist1 (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Why? Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- just a redundant layer. Much better is solution when, eg pictures from category:Uncategorized images of Nunavut is directly here (Category:Nunavut)--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- STRONGLY DISAGREE There are thousands of images in those sub categories which would be helpful in finding an appropriate category. Many of the images are actually categorized and need cleaned up. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: instead of nominating only one such category, start a discussion for Category:To be categorised by location and all its sub-categories. Surely any rationale that applies to this category also applies to any other location-based category of the same type (for example, Category:Ukraine to be categorised or Category:Uncategorized Korea files). Mindmatrix 22:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: see also my comment at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:To be categorised by country. Mindmatrix 23:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Secondarywaltz. -- Gauss (talk)
Procedural closure: discussion moved to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:To be categorised by country. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
not needed. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Illustrations files needing categories as of 2018 Estopedist1 (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not following your reason, but I would say this could be merged to Category:Panoramic photographs. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
2 weeks passed, no objections--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
not needed. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Illustrations files needing categories as of 2018 Estopedist1 (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not following your reason, but I would say this could be merged to Category:Panoramic photographs. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
2 weeks passed, no objections--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
unique cat. Not needed. Upmerge. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Illustrations files needing categories as of 2018 Estopedist1 (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
2 weeks no objections. Upmerged, deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
empty categoy Quakewoody (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Upmerge this and its subs for same reasons as Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:WAV files of music by composer. Josh (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Category is empty, so I've tagged it with {{Empty page}} to get it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
unique maintenance category (with Category:Categories of Portugal requiring diffusion). Seems to be bad precedent. Consists of quite random group of categories related to aviation. Should be someone's personal category (category:user categories) if really needed Estopedist1 (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: Closed (subsumed into Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Categories requiring diffusion) Josh (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
see Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Categories about aviation requiring diffusion Estopedist1 (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: Closed (subsumed into Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Categories requiring diffusion) Josh (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
see Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Unidentified subjects with file names or descriptions in French Estopedist1 (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussions merged at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Unidentified subjects with file names or descriptions in French. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
debería de ser borrado por ser un error de creación Aitorembe (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. @Aitorembe: Next time, please use {{Bad name}}. There is no need to discuss simple mistakes like this. Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 | Category:Karakoram Highway in Xinjiang | Move to/Rename as | Category:China National Highway 314 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | "Karakoram Highway in China is called en:China National Highway 314" | |||
 | Voidvector (talk · contribs) per move request | |||
- This seems appropriate, presuming that "Karakoram Highway in Xinjiang" and "China National Highway 314" are colinear and neither has portions that are not part of the other. Josh (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Actually given how you phrased it, "Karakoram Highway in Xinjiang" only reaches Kashgar, while "China National Highway 314" (G314) goes beyond Kashgar to Urumqi. So "Karakoram Highway in Xinjiang" would be entirely subsection of G314. So maybe the merging might not be appropriate. --Voidvector (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Voidvector: I only phrase it like that since that is the name of the original category, so I would presume it only covers the route within Xinjiang. However, if it is still all G314, perhaps better to be renamed Category:China National Highway 314 in Xinjiang and placed under Category:China National Highway 314? Josh (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: , no no no. What you said actually cleared things up for me. I was simply saying "Karakorm Highway in Xinjiang" is an entire subset of G314, so we can easily leave that as a subcategory of G314. I actually like to ***withdraw*** the rename request. --Voidvector (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Voidvector: No problem whatsoever, glad to see it resolved. Josh (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: , no no no. What you said actually cleared things up for me. I was simply saying "Karakorm Highway in Xinjiang" is an entire subset of G314, so we can easily leave that as a subcategory of G314. I actually like to ***withdraw*** the rename request. --Voidvector (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Voidvector: I only phrase it like that since that is the name of the original category, so I would presume it only covers the route within Xinjiang. However, if it is still all G314, perhaps better to be renamed Category:China National Highway 314 in Xinjiang and placed under Category:China National Highway 314? Josh (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Actually given how you phrased it, "Karakoram Highway in Xinjiang" only reaches Kashgar, while "China National Highway 314" (G314) goes beyond Kashgar to Urumqi. So "Karakoram Highway in Xinjiang" would be entirely subsection of G314. So maybe the merging might not be appropriate. --Voidvector (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Voidvector: Closed (request withdrawn) Josh (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Capitalised by mistake Tekstman (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Bad name}} to get it deleted. @Tekstman: tagging as I did is a better way to deal with this kind of thing, because a discussion isn't needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Grammatically incorrect name. Taivo (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Empty category. Tæ 09:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Tæ: , it's not empty. --Avsolov (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Avsolov: At the time of deletion nomination it was empty. You have added the category to various files after the nomination.--Tæ 11:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Tæ: This category was created for certain purpose. It is useful, from my point of view. Now it is not empty. I think there is no reason to nominate this category. --Avsolov (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Avsolov:
Agree--Tæ 15:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept Category is now used and nominator agree we can keep. --MGA73 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted. Unnecessary category. Redundant to Category:Media needing categories Estopedist1 (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
closed. 2 weeks no objection--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted. Subcategories and files to be upmerged to the category:2016 Summer Olympics Estopedist1 (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. Any files in the parent category can be taken as needing further categorization. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support deletion and upmerge. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
closed. 2 weeks no objection--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Empty. To be deleted. We use the main category: Category:Audio files Estopedist1 (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- I support deleting this and using the main category. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
closed. 2 weeks no objection--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Empty. To be deleted. We use the main category: Category:PDF files Estopedist1 (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- I support deleting this and using the main category. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
closed. 2 weeks no objection--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted. Estopedist1 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
closed. 2 weeks no objections--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted. Estopedist1 (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
closed. 2 weeks no objection--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted. Estopedist1 (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
closed. 2 weeks no objection--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
empty, redundant Estopedist1 (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
closed. 2 weeks no objection--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
closed. 2 weeks no objection--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
closed. 2 weeks no objection--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted, including all subcategories Estopedist1 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
closed. 2 weeks no objection--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
closed. 2 weeks no objection--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
closed. 2 weeks no objections--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
not needed. Upmerge. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Scientists from Russia to be categorised by field Estopedist1 (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- No, thats a very usefull catetory to be used as a maintenance list to find people-cats where this important part is missing. --JuTa 18:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with JuTa. This has proven to be a very useful maintenance category that helps us discover people that aren't categorised by profession. The nominator's only rationale is that it is "not needed", which is untrue. Väsk (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination let this category and Category:People to be categorised by country stay if admins and others want. Can be overlook in future. Category:People is overcrowded by subcategories anyway --Estopedist1 (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Done: withdrawn. --JuTa 06:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted, see: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:To be categorised by country Estopedist1 (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per argument outlined there. -- Gauss (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Estopedist1 and Gauss: Closed (subsumed into Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:To be categorised by country) Josh (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
should be deleted? Ambigious: can also be used when dealing with uncategorised files Estopedist1 (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I support deleting. It's a redirect to unidentified subjects, but unsorted is not the same as unidentified. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Estopedist1 and Auntof6: Closed (no objections; delete) Josh (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted. Only valuable is to retain parent cat: category:Unidentified subjects with file names or descriptions in Russian Estopedist1 (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussion. Themightyquill (talk) - 08:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
This category and all files within it are spam Mahir256 (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Mahir256: If files are spam, nominate them for deletion. Once they are no longer in the category it will be empty and can be summarily deleted at that point. Josh (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Cocktail glass icons for unification and correctness. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Support Ldorfman (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)- Support I would have just renamed it without discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Renamed. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
name with a typo Andrei (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. @Andrew J.Kurbiko: Next time, you can use {{Bad name}} for simple spelling errors that don't require discussion. --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
What is the difference between Big Red Cock in art and Red Cock in art? They contain the same files. Could one category be deleted? JopkeB (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: word "big" is subjective. I moved files per your suggestion. Category in question waiting to be speedy deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Category:Big Red Cock has been deleted, Category:Red Cock in art has been kept. JopkeB (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Categorization by file format is generally not allowed. To be deleted and to be upmerged. Estopedist1 (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Moreoever, we don't sort things by what they aren't. If we had to, we could use Category:Raster graphics of rowing blades but Category:Rowing blades is just fine. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
misleading and ambigious name of the category. In addition: categorization by file format is generally not allowed. Estopedist1 (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
no photo in category Gunofficial1998 (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
no photo in category Gunofficial1998 (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
no photo in category Gunofficial1998 (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The category name with correct grammar would be Category:Chemistry images without English description. Leyo 23:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- of course. But after all, it is probably bad solution. Because then we have: Animations without ..., Videos without ..., Audio files without ... etc.--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Why we would want such category in the first place? The name is irrelevant, such category is useless – not every image needs an English description, for most chemical structures any description is not needed. What's more, such categorisation should be done automatically if needed. Wostr (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC) In other words: Delete. Wostr (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
OK @Leyo and Wostr: now empty. 2 weeks no objections. Waiting to be speedy deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted. All subcategories to be upmerged. Estopedist1 (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK 2 weeks no objection. Empty, categories upmerged/moved. Waiting to be speedy deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
see Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Non-SVG rowing blades Estopedist1 (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Should be deleted as a duplicate of Category:Kim Driscoll that isn't a realistic name variant, and its only subcategory is an arbitrary grouping of items. Vahurzpu (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Vahurzpu: , yes. Speedy deletion is started--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
name should be translated into English Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Google Translate translates the name as "Art and culture". I don't think we want that as a category name because it's two different things. Maybe the images should just be recategorized and this category deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with that. The images appear to be about one (or a small group of) particular artist(s), anyway. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK Recategorized to category:Uncategorized media with description in Mongolian language. To be deleted. --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with that. The images appear to be about one (or a small group of) particular artist(s), anyway. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
categorization by file format is generally not allowed. Should be upmerged. However, maybe the category:SVG smilies should be not deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Categorizing by file format and content makes sense in a few cases (Category:SVG smilies being one of them), but I don't see why it is useful for PNG images. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree SVGs are fundamentally different than PNG/JPG/GIF files, so do warrant collection for certain topics. PNG/JPG/GIF categories however are not supported generally, so can be deleted. Josh (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK empty, waiting to be speedy deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Categorization by file format is generally not allowed. Any objection to upmerge this category with category:Wikipedia files? Estopedist1 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Categorizing by file format and content makes sense in a few cases, but I don't see why it is useful here. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK Upmerged. Empty. Waiting to be speedy deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Category moved Yuanga (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- waiting to be speedy deleted as mispelled--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
This deleting would be the best option Lotje (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
to be upmerged to Category:Cycling competitions and tours in France Estopedist1 (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Maybe, but please state a reason. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- what is "historical image"? See Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
2 weeks no objection. Waiting to be speedy deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Where is the difference to Category:Wikimedia Page Previews? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure, but if both are kept, the parent/child relationship needs to be reversed. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Wikimedia Page Previews. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
| Category:FPGA Integrated Circuits | Move to/Rename as | Category:Field-programmable gate array integrated circuits | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:FPGA boards | Move to/Rename as | Category:Field-programmable gate array circuit boards | |
| Category:Altera FPGAs | Move to/Rename as | Category:Altera field-programmable gate arrays | |
| Category:Intel FPGAs | Move to/Rename as | Category:Intel field-programmable gate arrays | |
| Category:Xilinx FPGAs | Move to/Rename as | Category:Xilinx field-programmable gate arrays | |
| Category:Field-programmable gate array | Move to/Rename as | Category:Field-programmable gate arrays | |
| FPGA should be replaced by 'field-programmable gate array' matching parent Category:Field-programmable gate array. | |||
| Josh (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
- I added the parent category, realizing it should be plural. Josh (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
No opposition in a month. Moved accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
"Commercial products" is a pleonasm. In economics, a product is always meant for commercial purposes, otherwise it is just a thing or a favour. My proposal is to transfer the content of this category to Category:Products. JopkeB (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- It does seem to be redundant, from what I can see. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Conclusion:This category is redundant. I'll transfer its content to Category:Products or subcategories and ask for its deletion. JopkeB (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
we have two essential SVG category with name "SVGs" not "SVG" (see the system here: category:SVG files)":
Just typos by the person who created those categories? Estopedist1 (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
2 weeks no objection. Spelling typo fixed. System established. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Redundant with Category:Guriel Themightyquill (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Content merged to category:Guriel. And Category:Guri'el is now the redirect. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Damals bei der Erstellung der Kategorie hätte richtigerweise der Titel "Shop windows in Hagen" heißen müssen. Kann das vielleicht von euch noch geändert werden? Wenn ja, vielen Dank. Bärwinkel,Klaus (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Closed. Renamed to Category:Shop windows in Hagen--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Any reason for the hyphen here? It doesn't seem to be the standard spelling. Themightyquill (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
2 weeks no objection. Renamed to Category:Biobío Region (same in enwiki) per user:Themightyquill. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Is this the same as Category:Bourne End, Hertfordshire? If so, I suggest merging this to that one. Auntof6 (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes disambiguate, there is also Category:Bourne End, Buckinghamshire (and 2 in Bedfordshire). Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK Content merged and DAB created--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
DAB is created. Discussion is closed..--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted? Upmerged to category:Chemistry Estopedist1 (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be a totally unsubstantiated request. In addition, the category is used by Template:Query chemical. --Leyo 22:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- well, the template in question can put the files into the category:Chemistry. For me, it seems logical that if the file is in category:Chemistry then the categorising by the expert encompass the chemical classification anyway--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Would you also propose to upmerge all files in Category:Unidentified animals and its subcategories to their main category?! --Leyo 20:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- well, the template in question can put the files into the category:Chemistry. For me, it seems logical that if the file is in category:Chemistry then the categorising by the expert encompass the chemical classification anyway--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no reason was given for removal of this category. Wostr (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Leyo: categories like "Uncategorised X" and categories "Unidentified X" are different systems. "Unidentified X" is used when specialists/scientists is needed (unidentified birds, plants, locations etc)--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Specialists are also needed to categorize chemicals. --Leyo 22:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Leyo: categories like "Uncategorised X" and categories "Unidentified X" are different systems. "Unidentified X" is used when specialists/scientists is needed (unidentified birds, plants, locations etc)--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as the chemistry-specific subcat of Category:To be categorised by subject. DMacks (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus for deleting/upmerging. If renaming will be actual, new CFD (categories for discussion) can be started---Estopedist1 (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
to be upmerged to parent category Estopedist1 (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Files in Category:Pochayiv Lavra are assumed to need categorization into sub-categories of Category:Pochayiv Lavra. Josh (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Empty category. Solomon203 (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's empty, so I tagged it with {{Empty page}} to get it deleted.--Kai3952 (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Solomon203: No need to discuss the cat here. If it is empty it will be speedily deleted.--Kai3952 (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Empty category. Solomon203 (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's empty, so I tagged it with {{Empty page}} to get it deleted.--Kai3952 (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Solomon203: No need to discuss the cat here. If it is empty it will be speedily deleted.--Kai3952 (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Empty category. Solomon203 (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's empty, so I tagged it with {{Empty page}} to get it deleted.--Kai3952 (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Solomon203: No need to discuss the cat here. If it is empty it will be speedily deleted.--Kai3952 (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. --Estopedist1 (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Empty category. Solomon203 (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's empty, so I tagged it with {{Empty page}} to get it deleted.--Kai3952 (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Solomon203: No need to discuss the cat here. If it is empty it will be speedily deleted.--Kai3952 (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. --Estopedist1 (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
should be renamed to indicate that it is a user category Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- It is not a user category: The subject is a notable researcher (a professor leading a research group at a German national institution, with peer-reviewed publications in bioinformatics journals, justifying the use of Category:Bioinformaticists). The fact that he is also an occasional contributor to Wikimedia projects and uploaded one of the 26 images in this category himself does not make this into a user category. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, I see. I didn't know that, and couldn't find any wikipedia article about him. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@Jochen Burghardt and HaeB: . Not renamed, because not user:category. If notability is in question. New CFD is needed--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Empty category. Solomon203 (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's empty, so I tagged it with {{Empty page}} to get it deleted.--Kai3952 (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Solomon203: No need to discuss the cat here. If it is empty it will be speedily deleted.--Kai3952 (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. --Estopedist1 (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Empty category. Solomon203 (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's empty, so I tagged it with {{Empty page}} to get it deleted.--Kai3952 (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Solomon203: No need to discuss the cat here. If it is empty it will be speedily deleted.--Kai3952 (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. --Estopedist1 (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete in favour of Category:Populated places in Kenya. No reason to merge these two categories. and have both Category:Villages by country and Category:Towns by country as parents. Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- waiting to be speedy deleted. Then can be closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Empty category, files moved to appropriate category Ebyabe (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- So what needs to be discussed? Just mark it for deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 03:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ebyabe and Jmabel: OK the redirect created. CFD can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Redirected. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
from the talk page:
- Are the filetype-only categories still useful to the project?
Estopedist1 (talk · contribs) removed many files from Category:TIFF files. When I asked him about it, he pointed to Special:MediaStatistics. See here for a permanent link to the discussion on his user page.
He has a point. Since the statistics page links to other special pages that can give us a complete list of .webp, .xcf, .gif, .tiff/.tif, .png/.apng, and .jpeg/.jpg/.jpe files, we may want to discourage re-populating these categories by adding text to the top of each of the related categories, saying that a file should not be added directly to categories like Category:GIF files, but that where appropriate, files should be added to the sub-categories like Category:GIF flags.
I did ask him to discuss future mass-deletions at Commons:CFD. He agreed. Davidwr (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Estopedist1 (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep but also try to keep them empty. The system is here (source: [1]):
- category:WEBP files (category:WebP files) (
- category:XCF files (category:Xcf files) (
- category:GIF files (category:Gif files) (
- category:TIFF files (category:Tiff files) (
- category:PNG files (category:Png files) (
- category:APNG files (category:Apng files) (0 files as of 2020)
- category:JPEG files (category:Jpeg files) (
- category:SVG files (category:Svg files) (
- category:WEBM files (category:WebM files) (
- category:MIDI files (category:Midi files) (
- category:MPEG files (category:Mpeg files) (
- category:FLAC files (category:Flac files) (
- category:WAV files (category:Wav files) (
- category:OGG files (category:Ogg files) (
- category:DJVU files (category:DjVu files) (
- category:PDF files (category:Pdf files) (
- category:SLA files (category:Sla files) (
--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@Davidwr: . Kept. 2 weeks no objection. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
unique, because there is not category:Audio files of primates by country. Do we want this category tree by country? Estopedist1 (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
unique, because there is not category:Audio files of prisons by country. Do we need this category tree? Estopedist1 (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
unique, because only one category in category:Audio files of songs by country? Do we need this category tree by country? Attention, that there are also unique category: category:Audio files of songs in Russian. Language base tree may be useful. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- 1) Not unique now. 2) Categorisation by language and categorisation by country are not equal. For example, File:01 - Bas barchyzy (The Beginning) - Wheels Must Roll - Bugotak.ogg - is song of Russia, but isn't song in Russian; File:Forwards Shakhtar.oga - isn't song of Russia, but is song in Russian. --Butko (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Other examples: File:0209173500tsukineko.ogg - language:Spanish, country:Japan; File:Bang Chhun Hong Patriotic.ogg - language:Japanese, country:Taiwan --Butko (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept per user:Butko.--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I suggest upmerging to category:Document icons or is it related to Category:Filetype icons?Estopedist1 (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- These are document icons that specificly indicate they are related to the Category:DjVu file format. I don't see the problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK, this CFD can be closed. Related and open CFD here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/05/Category:Filetype icons--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept.--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
redundant, to be deleted. We already have category:Unidentified people and eg category:Unidentified subjects with file names or descriptions in Ukrainian Estopedist1 (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 | Category:Unidentified people by language of file names | Delete | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:Unidentified people with file names or descriptions in Russian | Delete | ||
| Category:Unidentified people with file names or descriptions in Spanish | Delete | ||
| There is no need to subcat Category:Unidentified people by language of file names. This kind of categorization of maintenance categories leads to spending more effort maintaining the maintenance categories than the actual files that need maintenance. | |||
| Josh (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
Delete – I agree with Josh's rationale. Time spent subcategorizing could be better spent identifying. Senator2029 06:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
| Category:Unidentified buildings with file names or descriptions in Russian | Delete | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Only valuable is to retain parent cat: category:Unidentified subjects with file names or descriptions in Russian | |||
| Estopedist1 (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I propose to delete this empty maintenance category. We can use category:Panorama for new ones. But to keep category:Panoramic photographs of unidentified locations. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
empty, seems to be old and forgotten category Estopedist1 (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
not needed, no files in here are PDF or DJVU. Discussion also here User_talk:Butko#Unique_Category:Media_of_Russia_to_be_categorised_by_filetype Estopedist1 (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
this three categories are personal creation by user:Butko. Do we really need this new approach. Can be the precedent because then any topic can be here (Maintenance of category Food, Maintenance of category People, etc) Estopedist1 (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- If kept under Category:Category maintenance as a category to list all categories requiring any maintenance whatsoever, it should be there as Category:Categories requiring maintenance (flat list). However, I do not really see the value here, as typically a user interested in doing maintenance is either looking to do a particular type of maintenance (hence needing them categorized by type of maintenance required) or work in a particular topic they have expertise in (hence needing them categorized by topic). That said, I think this category can go away. The current subs appear to be topical categories anyway so belong in Category:Categories requiring maintenance by topic. Josh (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- actually I discovered we have: Category:Geographical WikiProjects. These subcategories are ridiculous but this is other topic :). More info: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/01/Category:Paris maintenance--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
same as category:SVGs by subject? Estopedist1 (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Redirected.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
all 1020 files in this category are already in parent category (category:Mentor Cardinals). I guess that we delete this "check needed-category" as redundant. Opinions? Estopedist1 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Redundant with Category:Huari Province. Themightyquill (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Redirect is done.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
seems to be one user project (see: User_talk:Pharos#"Chinese_languages") This is unique cat. And if we look specific files which is in there then the only similiarity is Chinese characters. I suggest just to delete this cat, upmerging is maybe not needed or something like Category:Chinese text Estopedist1 (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Category:Distrito de Uco is redundant with Category:Uco District Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Redirect is done. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be Category:Microscopic videos as parallel with Category:Microscopic images? They aren't videos of still images. Themightyquill (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think so. Kersti (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Moved Category:Microscopic videos. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: When you say a category should be deleted, you need to specify a reason. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: can't put speedy delete there, because there is template {{Empty category}}. In general, empty category and further files to be moved to the parent category--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Очень нужная категория. Вообще в родительской категории уточняет подкатегории только один человек - это я. И уж если не помогаете, то хотя-бы не мешайте, пожалуйста. S, AV 12:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- why it is bad, if new uncategorised images about Severodvinsk will be put into Category:Severodvinsk? We are systematically done this way--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Я не вижу смыла набивать мусором родительскую категорию Category:Severodvinsk. S, AV 13:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Schekinov Alexey Victorovich: If files are useless garbage, they should be deleted. Category:Severodvinsk does not have any indices, so the place to put files of Severodvinsk that have not yet been sorted is in the parent category. Moving a file into a maintenance category and out of its normal category deprives most users of the opportunity to find the file by normal browsing (most users have no interest in combing through maintenance categories). Josh (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Я не вижу смыла набивать мусором родительскую категорию Category:Severodvinsk. S, AV 13:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- why it is bad, if new uncategorised images about Severodvinsk will be put into Category:Severodvinsk? We are systematically done this way--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
2 weeks no further objections to user:Joshbaumgartner. Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Media of Severodvinsk needing categories. to be deleted. Not needed. category:Paris is enough Estopedist1 (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia Commons is not only for Commons users. Category:Paris should not be a sandbox.--Paris 16 (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Paris 16: "Sandbox" is subjective term. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Media of Severodvinsk needing categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
2 weeks no further objections. Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
to be deleted. Unique with Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12/Category:UK politician portraits adjusted for infoboxes Estopedist1 (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- 2 weeks no objections. Files moved to category:Politicians of Taiwan and category:Portraits of politicians of Taiwan. Waiting to be speedy deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
unique name of the cat. What to do? Estopedist1 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and upmerge into Category:Blank maps of the world. We do not have any structure to categorize maps by image size (nor any other kind of image I can think of), nor do I think there is value in that kind of categorization. Josh (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Naryn River or Category:Naryn (river) to disambiguate from Category:Naryn Province and Category:Naryn (town). Themightyquill (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support 1st choice of river being in the name per the English Wikipedia (and if nothing else per w:WP:NATURAL). Note that the town is at the base name on EN and since the threshold for PTs is higher here we shouldn't have a different PT to EN. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Renamed to Category:Naryn River. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
This category (with systematic name: "... to categorize more accurately") belongs to my created Category:User:Roland zh created categories (to categorize more accurately). Should we be upmerged all those subcategories? Estopedist1 (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- 2 weeks no objections. Upmerging in progress--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
When would a "Vector image" be Vector art? Could there be a clear definition of "Vector art", pointing out the difference with an ordinary vector image? Or could both categories be merged? JopkeB (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- there are kind of mess related to "vector categories" and "SVG categories". See eg Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Vector images by subject--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- this category is empty and this category should be deleted or redirected to category:vector graphics. In enwiki, there is redirect, see en:vector art--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Dear @Estopedist1: thank you for solving this issue. JopkeB (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- this category is empty and this category should be deleted or redirected to category:vector graphics. In enwiki, there is redirect, see en:vector art--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Conclusion: Both categories are empty now, the files has been transferred to category:SVG files or its subcategories. I shall make redirects to category:vector graphics for both categories.JopkeB (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Suggest upmerging with Category:Muons. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@1234qwer1234qwer4: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The four main parts of the United Kingdom -- England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales -- are called constituent countries. However, I think it's confusing to use "by country" when having categories that group things by these four. Is this really the name we want to use, or can we come up with a different term? This CFD applies to this category, its subcategory, and any other similarly-named categories. Auntof6 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- With only four constituent countries to the UK, I doubt we need any benefits this subdivision provides. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- No doubt, this is a bad name! If really we needs such a category, perhaps the correct name would be "Constituent countries of the United Kingdom", sure not "United Kingdom by country" ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether we call England a country or not, this title doesn't make sense. We don't have Category:United States by state, and we already have Category:Countries of the United Kingdom. I guess this was meant to be Category:Categories of the United Kingdom by country? In this case, it could exist as Category:Categories of the United Kingdom by constituent country. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Themightyquill (talk · contribs). The "United Kingdom" cannot be divided amongst its constituent countries. It seems this is only an ungainly index of indices (currently only one - Category:Government of the United Kingdom by country) and so it really doesn't serve much purpose. It would be like having Category:World by country. I get why someone might use it to gather 'by country' indices, but in reality it doesn't really offer any value above that already served by Category:Countries of the United Kingdom. I recommend we simply delete Category:United Kingdom by country and that Category:Government of the United Kingdom by country simply live under Category:Countries of the United Kingdom. Josh (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Auntof6, Rodhullandemu, Themightyquill, and DenghiùComm: Closed (no objection; delete) Josh (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/03/Category:Disambiguation galleries of place names. all subcategories to be deleted and the content upmerged to the parent category (category:Disambiguation of galleries). Small categories and very likely in future we don't hold two parallel system on disambiguations, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Silver Peak Estopedist1 (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
in addition this also clutters category:Non-empty disambiguation categories, eg category:Silver Peak--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Disagree. These made more sense before JCB did a mass deletion of gallery pages. They should be kept. The structure also corresponds directly to en.wiki and some of the other languages. I suggest we come up with a policy. Perhaps at Commons:Category disambiguation and Commons talk:Category disambiguation. Evrik (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep disambiguation pages should exist if there are multiple galleries which require disambiguation otherwise you have endless disputes which one gets the base name. Also revert JCB's mass deletions. Also note that the Silver Peak discussion appeared to have consensus to keep anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Evrik and Crouch, Swale: but to get rid of category:Non-empty disambiguation categories, I mentioned Silver Peak in DAB page category:Silver Peak. Is this solution acceptable?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe the template could be modified to exclude DAB pages or even mainspace pages from adding to Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories? Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Keep. Too strong arguments by user:Crouch, Swale. The harmonizing of subcategories' names will be discussed in future CFD. The modifying of the template can be also waited--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe the template could be modified to exclude DAB pages or even mainspace pages from adding to Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories? Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Evrik and Crouch, Swale: but to get rid of category:Non-empty disambiguation categories, I mentioned Silver Peak in DAB page category:Silver Peak. Is this solution acceptable?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
What is the difference with Category:Donkeys in art? Could this category be included in Category:Donkeys in art? JopkeB (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- It might make sense to merge the two. Using latin taxonomy for "in art" categories isn't always useful, since people often can't tell exactly which species of plant/animal is being depicted. But in this case, I don't think that's an issues. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Thanks for your comment! JopkeB (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Conclusion: The two categories can be merged. I'll transferr all the current files of Category:Equus asinus in art to Category:Donkeys in art and shall make a redirect for the subcategory Category:Postcards of Equus asinus to Category:Postcards of donkeys. JopkeB (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
To be deleted and to be upmerged to the category:Media of Russia Estopedist1 (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I withdraw my suggestion per Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:To be categorised by country. CFD can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Is redirected. Withdrawal. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Maybe it is the bad redirect, because "image" is much wider concept than "photograph"? Estopedist1 (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed that the redirect is probably not a good one as you say. Should Category:Images by year be a parent for Category:Photographs by year and Category:Paintings by year and so on? Josh (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK @Joshbaumgartner: redirect removed. Solution per user:Joshbaumgartner--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Images by year is acceptable, if used to distinguish from Documents by year or Audio-Visual media by year or similar. Senator2029 11:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
misleading (files in here are not historical but history-related) and probably unnecessary category Estopedist1 (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Move to Category:Vector Markup Language for clarity, like Category:Scalable Vector Graphics. Themightyquill (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support and place a DAB here for Category:Vastus medialis longus (which doesn't exist yet) and any others, category redirects shouldn't be used when a DAB could be. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Strong support for the move to "Vector Markup Language" but not very sure about DAB for VML. Enwiki redirects (en:VML), but dewiki and some others have done DAB (see wikidata:Q242489)--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Themightyquill and Crouch, Swale: DAB is created--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
small cat and hard to differentiate from parent category: Should be upmerged to category:Audio files about yoga Estopedist1 (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
unique, because there is not category:Audio files of paintings by country. Paintings can be move from country to country. Do we want this category tree by country? Estopedist1 (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
do we really need this category? There should be 10 000+ audio files. And so it needs topical categorization by composer, interpreter etc. I don't think it is rational, to have parallel category with Category:Audio files of music by composer Estopedist1 (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
logical mistake in the title? Files in Commons are in the public domain. Correct title: Category:Audio files of traditional music? Estopedist1 (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Is redirected. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
unique hierarchy (because "in the public domain"):
- category:1900s photographs in the public domain
- category:1910s photographs in the public domain
- category:1920s photographs in the public domain
- category:1930s photographs in the public domain
- category:1940s photographs in the public domain
- category:1950s photographs in the public domain
- category:1960s photographs in the public domain
- category:1970s photographs in the public domain
Probably should be upmerged to parent category Estopedist1 (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- The 1900s were a decade. The 1900s are in the 20th century, but the entire 20th century is not the 1900s. The 1970s were not in the 1900s. The 20th century lasted from 1900 to 1999, the 1900s lasted from 1900 to 1909. --81.140.194.49 18:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep: People may wish to find public domain photographs by decade. This could prove highly useful. --86.131.140.35 11:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete no need for special category. PetScan do the job, see eg https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=15500762 If kept then bad precedent and we may have millions of categories named like "Paintings of battles in public domain", "Illustrations of cats in the public domain"--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted per Estopedist. Taivo (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete as ambiguous and obsolete. Category was apparently created as a placeholder for ambiguous prints from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The lithographer is identified in other sources as Louis N. Rosenthal, but the category could also apply to other Philadelphia lithographers such as Max Rosenthal (brother of Louis), Albert Rosenthal (son of Max), or other Rosenthal Brothers. --Animalparty (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it is better to delete it. Imagine you put here temporarily 900 files and after 5 hours you move them to the right category. But during this 5 hours period someone else used this category, so there can be potential mix of files by two users. Rational is to create ad hoc red category (eg "Category:user:X files to be moved") if temporary moving of files is in action Estopedist1 (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please note extensive discussion already at Category talk:To do. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1 and Themightyquill: This is being used as a personal temporary container for whatever pages the user is working on. Do we want to have these kinds of categories in the first place? If so, how can we provide a structured place for them to exist under Category:Maintenance categories in a way where it is understood what they are, and they can be patrolled to avoid long-term pooling of pages in them? Josh (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. If this is a personal category, it should be categorized and named as such. Personal categories do not belong in non-personal categories, even maintenance categories. Some transient personal categories like this are even just used without actually creating them. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: Would you be okay with a move to Category:User:Alexis Jazz's to do or something similar? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I don't care what the name of the category is really, but I do prefer it not to be red like Estopedist1 suggested. The problem with red categories is that cat-a-lot complains about categorizing something into a red category, which is very annoying when files are coming from multiple sources. As I don't seem to have explained it on Category talk:To do, that's how I generally use this: categorize stuff with cat-a-lot that can't be targeted directly with VFC (for example: file pages that were edited by some particular user or all the images in a gallery), then process the stuff with VFC. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Deleted. Moved to Category:User:Alexis Jazz's to do. CFD closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
seems to be redundant parent cat. Let just be category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts located in category:Commons maintenance content Estopedist1 (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Do we really need this category and category:Prospective categories? Estopedist1 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep both. How would you maintain the content if they didn't exist? The templates are necessary without doubt and these cats are populated by the templates. How would you find cats that can be removed from these categories (by removing the tags) or that are added erroneously to them? Querying the database? Well, I could do so, but many others cannot. --Achim (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep both. These are different concepts. User:Estopedist1 needs to find another hobby. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: I disagree with Estopedist1 (talk · contribs) on this one as do you, but their question is valid and this is the place to ask it. No need to try and deter them from asking it here. Josh (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Sure so but that’s not the first such unfruitful discussion user Estopedist1 raised very recently. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: I disagree with Estopedist1 (talk · contribs) on this one as do you, but their question is valid and this is the place to ask it. No need to try and deter them from asking it here. Josh (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep These are populated automatically by template and so can be maintained that way. I think it is good to have a way to mark a category which a user is in the process of fleshing out to save other editors the effort of trying to figure out if it is a valid category and instead give them time to build it up. It also makes it easy to see if there are categories with these templates taht should have them removed either because the work has reached maturity or been abandoned. Josh (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Both categories kept.--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Empty over year? To be deleted? We can easily use category:Cultural heritage monuments in Ternopil Oblast Estopedist1 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Useless category. Taivo (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Empty. To be deleted. We use talk page to show that there are problems with file in question Estopedist1 (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
should be disambiguation. Old discussion here [[2]] Estopedist1 (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- (Old discussion actually rather here.) So, it should be a disambiguation… of what? Category:EL letter combinations versus Category:Images from Enciclopedia Libre? Seems oddly specific. Why not have the former as a parent cat of the latter, instead? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: Are you suggesting Category:EL letter combinations be the parent of Category:Images from Enciclopedia Libre, or that Category:EL be the parent of both, or what? Josh (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think should have Category:EL letter combinations as a parent cat of Category:Images from Enciclopedia Libre, yes, as said. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- And to keep Category:EL as a redirect of Category:EL letter combinations, as it is. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: Are you suggesting Category:EL letter combinations be the parent of Category:Images from Enciclopedia Libre, or that Category:EL be the parent of both, or what? Josh (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Disambiguate only looking at qualified titles there is Category:El (deity), Category:El (given name) and Category:El (surname particle). Per Commons:Category redirects#Inappropriate uses#2 specifies when a disambiguation would be more appropriate since a category redirect still requires the reader to click through. Also note that w:El is a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: I would fully agree if we were discussing Category:El instead. As it is, this discussion must go on further to achieve clarity. (Incidentally, the word "inappropriate" seems rather… inappropriate in this context: This is not a matter of vandalism, nor of obvious right and wrong. Positive wording would help.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- to me it is obvious that: category:EL and category:El both should be integrated to one DAB page, like enwiki does: en:EL and en:El--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes per w:WP:DABCOMBINE though its currently annoying due to having to click through a category redirect but we probably shouldn't create duplicate DAB pages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Category:El (lower case) is now a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: nice point about the redirect. Probably inevitable. But definitely NOT to create duplicate DAB pages.--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I think we should redirect to the lower case DAB like WP noting that there are several uses of the capital "L" like w:EL (rapper). Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: nice point about the redirect. Probably inevitable. But definitely NOT to create duplicate DAB pages.--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Category:El (lower case) is now a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes per w:WP:DABCOMBINE though its currently annoying due to having to click through a category redirect but we probably shouldn't create duplicate DAB pages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- to me it is obvious that: category:EL and category:El both should be integrated to one DAB page, like enwiki does: en:EL and en:El--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale and Tuvalkin: EL and El redirect to one DAB page. Solution per enwiki. This CFD can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The result was DAB created at lower case title and upper case redirected to it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The title is ambiguous - should this be for literally green elements (in Category:Architectural elements by color) or is it for environmentally friendly architectural elements (as the parent categories would suggest)? Maybe follow the model of Category:Green roofs (sustainability)? Themightyquill (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- In order to separate these meanings I just created Category:Green architectural elements (color) like the older Category:Green walls (color). --Elkost (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Moved content to Category:Green architectural elements (sustainability) and converted Category:Green architectural elements into a disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete. No reason to continue organizing populated places in a now defunct county Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Redirected by User:Cycn. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Rename Category:Kautokeino (village), along with relevant subcategories Themightyquill (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
No opposition. Redirected to Category:Kautokeino (village) along with relevant subcategories. - 10:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Rename Category:Kautokeino (municipality) or Category:Kautokeino Municipality to avoid confusion with the village. Themightyquill (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support since "Kautokeino" is also a surname. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Kautokeino (municipality). Category:Kautokeino converted to disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Move to Category:Marius Al-Ani ? Themightyquill (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support In addition, category:Al Ani or category:Al-Ani seems to be surname--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Marius Al-Ani. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
all subcategories to be deleted. Or is FLAC files somehow special, for example category:SVG files maybe does? Estopedist1 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Categories deleted as suggested. GFJ (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
do we need this category? There is already category:Theme music and category:Instrumental music. We also do not have category:Background music, but enwiki has en:background music Estopedist1 (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
suspectable category? Probable it is better if we create category:Audio files of electronic music and upmerge electronic songs to there Estopedist1 (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Redirected to category:Audio files of electronic music. CFD closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
we have two parallel systems:
- (a) category:Uncategorized media with description in French language
- (b) category:Unidentified subjects with file names or descriptions in French
I think we should retain only one: I suggest variant (a) with addition: category:Media needing categories with file names or descriptions in French language Estopedist1 (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Your suggestion sounds good. My question is: are all media included in "subjects"? How about "objects"? Sije (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sije: of course the word "media" (or "files") comprises all kind of subjects, objects--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I meant to ask whether Category:Unidentified "subjects" with file names or descriptions in French comprises all kind of media or files. --Sije (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sije: it is not important if we follow my scheme:
- Media needing categories with file names or descriptions in French language (new category)
- Category:Unidentified subjects with file names or descriptions in French (to be deleted and to be integrated to the new category)
- --Estopedist1 (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK. Sounds fine. Sije (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sije: it is not important if we follow my scheme:
- I meant to ask whether Category:Unidentified "subjects" with file names or descriptions in French comprises all kind of media or files. --Sije (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sije: of course the word "media" (or "files") comprises all kind of subjects, objects--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Estopedist1 and Sije: 
Question Why is it important to segregate uncategorized files based on the language of the file name? We don't generally sort by the language of file names. Sorting by language used in the file itself makes some sense, but I'm not seeing the value doing so based on the language of the file name or description. Josh (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- It is important in order to help us find people that are potentially able to help with finding appropriate categories for uncategorized files. For example, if I do not understand French, then I might not be able to help with finding appropriate categories for a file which is only described in French; but someone who does understand both English and French might be able to help. So if someone understands both English and another language, then he or she can go to the list of media needing categories with file names or descriptions in that language, and try to find appropriate categories for those files. Sincerely, --Sije (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sije: I appreciate the effort to attract users to help with maintenance tasks. I will say that the language of a file name is of no real importance whatsoever to me conducting tasks on a file. Afterall, file names range from well written and clear names to complete jibberish, and while file names may contain hints for identification of subjects, it is hardly the only clue, or even the best. I'm concerned that adding all of these levels of sub-categorization for maintenance categories is actually quite counter-productive. I may be perfectly able to identify an aircraft in an image, regardless of the file name or description language (I often deal with files that have no meaningful info in the name or description in any language), but I am unlikely to dig into a language-specific category that I do not speak. While the intent may be to attract, in this case, French-speaking users to help with these files, whatever effect this has, it will logically have an opposite effect on all non-French-speaking users, thus effectively limiting the pool of users to work on those files to the Francophone community. Since the vast majority of maintenance tasks are language-independent, this actually means fewer users available to tackle the maintenance work than would otherwise be the case. If we pursue this kind of sub-categorization we will end up with maintenance tasks fractured into dozens of individual language communities, which will do a lot more to deter maintenance than it will to spur it. Josh (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sije and Joshbaumgartner: sorry, Josh, but we definitely need this kind of maintenance cat. Look again parent categories (should be merged!):
- Category:Unidentified subjects by language of file names or descriptions
- Category:Media needing categories by language of description
These are systematic and should contain no subcategories (like redundant "Unidentified people with file names or descriptions in Spanish"; CFD is already pending there).
For clarity it is really needed that category name consists of phrase by language of file names or descriptions or by language of descriptions or file names. Because there are many cases when there are the image with file name eg in Finnish but description box is empty. In addition because we are more and more focusing on WikiProjects then eg "category:Uncategorized media with description in Serbian language" is also in category:WikiProject Serbia to attract more people interested in Serbia stuff--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: So does a file which has descriptions in multiple languages need to be maintained in all of the different language categories? Also, is this a parallel system or in place of the existing maintenance categories? What I mean is, if I have an unidentified aircraft image under Category:Unidentified aircraft and it has a French description, does it get moved from Category:Unidentified aircraft to Category:Unidentified subjects with file names or descriptions in French? If not, what protections are in place to prevent this kind of move? Josh (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
-
- of course, parallel system.
- These are very rare cases if there are 3+ different language descriptions. In general, these are just translations of English one.
- There are never protections if we are dealing with cat-a-lot function. Every user can do mistakes--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
-
- @Estopedist1 and Sije: Well I certainly agree with merging the two if they are going to exist, and while I have reservations about keeping the structure at all, so long as it is parallel and we do not see it harming the normal maintenance categories, the harm is mitigated. In any case, discussion about whether to keep these categories or not probably is best had in its own discussion at the Category:Unidentified subjects by language of file names or descriptions level, so that should not impact resolving this discussion. Josh (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner and Sije: you can move this discussion to right place. My suggestion is that only one cat and with name:
category:Files needing categories with file names or descriptions in X language--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner and Sije: you can move this discussion to right place. My suggestion is that only one cat and with name:
- @Joshbaumgartner and Sije: correcting: per Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:To be categorised by country the name should be
category:Uncategorized files with file names or descriptions in X language--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner and Sije: correcting: per Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:To be categorised by country the name should be
4 subcategories in Category:Unidentified subjects by language of file names or descriptions waiting to be speedy deleted. After that unnecessary categorization layer is removed--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Categories deleted. Category:Unidentified subjects by language of file names or descriptions is the redirect Estopedist1 (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no too many files in Category:Amphetamine to justify this category. I see really no point in having this cat. Wostr (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. By definition, this cat will only be composites of pairs of images in the parent. DMacks (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oposse. I see no reason to eliminate and declassify the category. --Allforrous (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. --Leyo 09:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
problematic. I upmerged one file (File:Cistus longifolius (as asperifolius) (Sweet 87).JPG) to the main cat (=is the DAB) Estopedist1 (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
| Category:Mäntyvaaran ravirata | Move to/Rename as | Category:Mäntyvaara Race Track | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "Per https://rovaniemenravirata.fi/en/. According to COM:LP and COM:CAT#Category names, category names should generally be in English." | |||
| Apalsola (talk · contribs) per move request | |||
- I agree with using English names, but from the cited source, it seems that the name is simply "Mäntyvaara" from their use of lower case letters for 'race track' when it follows the name. Since there are no other Category:Mäntyvaara to cause confusion, I think that alone should serve as a valid name for this place. Josh (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mäntyvaara (Finnish for "Pine hill"; mänty = Pinus sylvestris, vaara = forested hill) is a hill located near the race track, so the race track is named after that hill. Mäntyvaara is quite a common geographical name in Finland (just search it at https://asiointi.maanmittauslaitos.fi/karttapaikka/?lang=en). Thus I think it would be quite odd and confusing to dedicate Category:Mäntyvaara to a race track.
- Yes, the race track is sometimes referred only as "Mäntyvaara" on the website. However, I consider it just as an abbreviated form of the full (English) name which is "Mäntyvaara Race Track" (or "Mäntyvaara race track" in case the capital case is the problem). The full name is used for example in the contact information in the bottom of the page. The usage of Mäntyvaara also does not cause confusion at https://rovaniemenravirata.fi/en/ because it is the official website of Mäntyvaara race track, so the context already is harness racing. However, that is not the case on Commons: for an ordinary non-Finnish user it probably connotes nothing while for a Finnish user it connotes a hill and not a race track.
- Similarly, London Heathrow Airport is often referred just as "Heathrow" at https://www.heathrow.com/ but we are still not considering moving Category:London Heathrow Airport to Category:Heathrow.
- Thus, I still vote for "Mäntyvaara Race Track" (or "Mäntyvaara race track"). ––Apalsola t • c 00:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes we shouldn't abbriviate names unless there overwhelmingly called that in a general context. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mäntyvaara race track is good name. Can someone change category name? Markus Kauppinen (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
| Category:Mäntyvaaran ravirata | Move to/Rename as | Category:Mäntyvaara | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per move request, original title is incorrect. However, name "Mäntyvaara" is sufficient for the category name. | |||
| Josh (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
Category moved to Category:Mäntyvaara race track. The discussion has been open for more than four months, and there is a consensus for the new name. (The only user who started this discussion and proposed the original name never commented again.) ––Apalsola t • c 21:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Unusual category name. I suggest Category: Water supply in Vienna in accordance with Category:Water supply in Austria, Category:Water supply in Rhenish Hesse, Category:Water supply in Jerusalem etc. Ies (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- No problem for me, do it. My english is not so good. If you know it better, it's okay for me. regards K@rl (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support since its not a proper noun but s generic set category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
done.--Roy17 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Braunfels and Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Wetzlar should be merged into Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis An Lahn und Dill, since the two Kirchenkreise merged January 1, 2019, cf. https://evangelisch-an-lahn-und-dill.de/evangelischer-kirchenkreis-an-lahn-und-dill/ Zweioeltanks (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Category has been emptied, with a redirect to Category:Churches in Evangelischer Kirchenkreis an Lahn und Dill.--Zweioeltanks (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Braunfels and Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Wetzlar should be merged into Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis An Lahn und Dill, since the two Kirchenkreise merged January 1, 2019, cf. https://evangelisch-an-lahn-und-dill.de/evangelischer-kirchenkreis-an-lahn-und-dill/ Zweioeltanks (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Category has been emptied, with a redirect to Category:Churches in Evangelischer Kirchenkreis an Lahn und Dill.--Zweioeltanks (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Eschwege and Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Witzenhausen should be merged into Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Werra-Meißner, since the two Kirchenkreise merged January 1, 2020, cf. https://www.hna.de/lokales/witzenhausen/kirchenkreise-eschwege-und-witzenhausen-fusionieren-13414069.html Zweioeltanks (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Category has been emptied, with a redirect to Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Werra-Meißner.--Zweioeltanks (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Eschwege and Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Witzenhausen should be merged into Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Werra-Meißner, since the two Kirchenkreise merged January 1, 2020, cf. https://www.hna.de/lokales/witzenhausen/kirchenkreise-eschwege-und-witzenhausen-fusionieren-13414069.html Zweioeltanks (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Category has been emptied, with a redirect to Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Werra-Meißner.--Zweioeltanks (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Bad Hersfeld and Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Rotenburg (Fulda) should be merged into Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Hersfeld-Rotenburg, since the two Kirchenkreise merged January 1, 2020, cf. https://www.ekkw.de/gemeinden/kirchenkreise.html Zweioeltanks (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Category has been emptied, with a redirect to Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Hersfeld-Rotenburg.--Zweioeltanks (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Bad Hersfeld and Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Rotenburg (Fulda) should be merged into Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Hersfeld-Rotenburg, since the two Kirchenkreise merged January 1, 2020, cf. https://www.ekkw.de/gemeinden/kirchenkreise.html Zweioeltanks (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Category has been emptied, with a redirect to Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Hersfeld-Rotenburg.--Zweioeltanks (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Hofgeismar and Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Wolfhagen should be merged into Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Hofgeismar-Wolfhagen, since the two Kirchenkreise merged January 1, 2020, cf. https://www.ekkw.de/gemeinden/kirchenkreise.html Zweioeltanks (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Category has been emptied, with a redirect to Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Hofgeismar-Wolfhagen.--
Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Hofgeismar and Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Wolfhagen should be merged into Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Hofgeismar-Wolfhagen, since the two Kirchenkreise merged January 1, 2020, cf. https://www.ekkw.de/gemeinden/kirchenkreise.html Zweioeltanks (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ich erledige das. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Category has been emptied, with a redirect to Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Hofgeismar-Wolfhagen.--
Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Gelnhausen and Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Schlüchtern should be merged into Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Kinzigtal, since the two Kirchenkreise merged January 1, 2020, cf. https://www.ekkw.de/gemeinden/kirchenkreise.html Zweioeltanks (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Category has been emptied, with a redirect to Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Kinzigtal.--Zweioeltanks (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Gelnhausen and Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Schlüchtern should be merged into Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Kinzigtal, since the two Kirchenkreise merged January 1, 2020, cf. https://www.ekkw.de/gemeinden/kirchenkreise.html Zweioeltanks (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Category has been emptied, with a redirect to Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Kinzigtal.--Zweioeltanks (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Fritzlar-Homberg, Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Ziegenhain, and Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Melsungen should be merged into Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Schwalm-Eder, since the three Kirchenkreise merged January 1, 2020, cf. https://www.ekkw.de/gemeinden/kirchenkreise.html Zweioeltanks (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Category has been emptied, with a redirect to Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Schwalm-Eder.--Zweioeltanks (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Fritzlar-Homberg, Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Ziegenhain, and Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Melsungen should be merged into Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Schwalm-Eder, since the three Kirchenkreise merged January 1, 2020, cf. https://www.ekkw.de/gemeinden/kirchenkreise.html Zweioeltanks (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Category has been emptied, with a redirect to Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Schwalm-Eder.--Zweioeltanks (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Fritzlar-Homberg, Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Ziegenhain, and Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Melsungen should be merged into Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Schwalm-Eder, since the three Kirchenkreise merged January 1, 2020, cf. https://www.ekkw.de/gemeinden/kirchenkreise.html Zweioeltanks (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Category has been emptied, with a redirect to Category:Churches in Kirchenkreis Schwalm-Eder.--Zweioeltanks (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
This should be Category:Ethernet cables? Alibigrap (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support: There are no "RJ45 cables" because RJ45 is a connector and not a cable. Category:RJ45 cables contains 1 image only. Suggest moving it elsewhere and deleting the cat. --Achim (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Done: deleted empty cat. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Can we just delete this redirect page? I've since created Category:Statue of Kanō Jigorō (Shinjuku, Tokyo) because there are multiple statues of the same person in Tokyo, so disambiguation was needed. Another Believer (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Female eyes by color Trade (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand. How can it be replaced? Not all females are women. Then again, maybe Category:Female eyes and Category:Female eyes by color are sufficient, in which case we can delete the poorly named Category:Women eyes and its subcategories. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Jewish ghettos. Outside Europe, "Ghetto" can mean other things. Themightyquill (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Moved: Per nom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Yasu: The company name change seems fine (the first category is pretty obviously misspelled/malformed. However, there really is only content in the second category. Can these two simply be merged into one category? Josh (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree reasonable idea. Yasu (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Renamed. @Joshbaumgartner: It seems the content of the categories was moved a bit, so both categories are kept for now. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Yasu: The company name change seems fine (the first category is pretty obviously misspelled/malformed. However, there really is only content in the second category. Can these two simply be merged into one category? Josh (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree reasonable idea. Yasu (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Renamed. @Joshbaumgartner: It seems the content of the categories was moved a bit, so both categories are kept for now. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
| Category:Tanks by era | Delete | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unneeded extra index level for a single category. Category:Tanks by military conflict can simply be under Category:Tanks. | |||
| Josh (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
- Oppose. The decision to remove the interwar categories was not based on a strong consensus, and the decision to remove post-WW2 categories on no consensus at all, at least the latter should be reversed. Ain92 (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as Ain92. I'm also concerned that this would be used to remove many more categories than have been listed here, as the nominator has been doing previously. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#CfD scope? (Military vehicles of the interwar period) Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: These “extra” levels are useful: keep them and reinstate the already deleted ones. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This category and Category:Attribution seems to have the same content: Images that require attribution. We can also move the other way if someone think it is better. MGA73 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Images and image categories could be moved from Category:Attribution to Category:Images requiring attribution, but Category:Attribution contains non-image content so should probably be kept. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nice mess. So we have the legacy primary license tag {{Attribution}} that adds Category:Attribution as a tracker category. It doesn't seem to add Category:Images requiring attribution. I do see home brew templates like {{Attribution-La Moncloa}} that add this second category. I see more of these template at Category:Primary license tags (flat list).
- Let's first start with the tracker category of {{Attribution}}. Category:Attribution is a much too broad name. Any suggestions for a better name? This is a legacy licensing minefield. @MGA73: beware of what you're getting yourself into. Multichill (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Multichill ooops! /Hides :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- @MGA73: I ran into this one with SDoC conversion again. I think it's best we rename both the template and the license. Not sure what the best new name should be {{Attribution only license}}? {{Only Attribution license}}? {{Attribution only}}? {{Only Attribution}}? The tracker category should be renamed in the same way. The reason I like to have license in the name is because this template is used 272.000 times of which 36.000 have a cc-by template and 103.000 have a cc-by-sa template. I suspect in a lot of these cases the user was actually looking for the attribution field or something like {{Credit line}}. @Jarekt: what do you think? Multichill (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Multichill: I think you are right and a rename might help. {{Credit line}} even says "Attribution" so it is a mess. The only problem I can think of is that some Wikipedias may use {{Attribution}} and if we rename here we need to make sure that FileImporter and other tools translate correctly. If it spreads out more perhaps we should make a notice at VP or somewhere to draw attention to this discussion? --MGA73 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, please do. I left a message on the talk page of the template. Multichill (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Multichill: I think you are right and a rename might help. {{Credit line}} even says "Attribution" so it is a mess. The only problem I can think of is that some Wikipedias may use {{Attribution}} and if we rename here we need to make sure that FileImporter and other tools translate correctly. If it spreads out more perhaps we should make a notice at VP or somewhere to draw attention to this discussion? --MGA73 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @MGA73: I ran into this one with SDoC conversion again. I think it's best we rename both the template and the license. Not sure what the best new name should be {{Attribution only license}}? {{Only Attribution license}}? {{Attribution only}}? {{Only Attribution}}? The tracker category should be renamed in the same way. The reason I like to have license in the name is because this template is used 272.000 times of which 36.000 have a cc-by template and 103.000 have a cc-by-sa template. I suspect in a lot of these cases the user was actually looking for the attribution field or something like {{Credit line}}. @Jarekt: what do you think? Multichill (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Multichill ooops! /Hides :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I like {{Attribution only license}} the best, and yes it is a confusing name. Also {{Attribution}} seem to be one of the Wikipedia only home-brewed "license". Perhaps another candidate for depreciation when used for the new uploads. --Jarekt (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Done renamed it to {{Attribution only license}} and Category:Attribution only license. Now we have to wait a bit and probably clean up a lot more. Multichill (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Multichill: Great! I will try to fil FileImporter. --MGA73 (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I like {{Attribution only license}} the best, and yes it is a confusing name. Also {{Attribution}} seem to be one of the Wikipedia only home-brewed "license". Perhaps another candidate for depreciation when used for the new uploads. --Jarekt (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- I obviously agree that there is no need for two categories that do the same thing (one apparently being used by the license itself, the other by a few custom source-specific templates), but I don't know why people are talking about {{Attribution}} being "legacy" or "deprecated". It's a very easy to understand free license: you have to mention the author when reusing but do not have to mention the license, which you have to do for all CC licenses (except CC0) and most other free licenses. It's the missing link between cc-by and cc0, more permissive than the former but more restrictive than the latter. I've gotten several OTRS permissions from external copyright holders in the past using {{Attribution}} because I didn't want to confuse non-Wikimedians with jargon like "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0" or expect them to read a legal contract; "provided I am named as the author" is way easier to understand. It's a very good license template and there is no reason to discourage its use. Tokfo (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Tokfo, the template itself continues to be useful and easily understood by the news media and others using Commons images. I used it on my hundreds of uploads! — JGHowes talk 18:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and started doing clean up. My approach is that every template should have a one on one match with a tracker category. So no tricks with multiple templates adding files to Category:Attribution and Category:Images requiring attribution. Examples:
- {{Attribution only license}} and Category:Attribution only license
- {{Attribution-La Moncloa}} and Category:Attribution-La Moncloa
- {{Attribution-gencat}} and Category:Attribution-gencat
I managed to clean out Category:Attribution this way and am now working my way through Category:Images requiring attribution. What I did notice is that too many custom attribution licenses are in Category:Primary license tags (flat list), but should be changed to use {{Attribution only license}} and be place in Category:Custom Attribution license tags. Multichill (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Changing categories is fine, but changing the license is not permitted without the agreement of the copyright holder. The Wikimedia Foundation does not have relicensing rights to the user's contributions. See also {{WikimediaNoLicensing}}. JGHowes talk 20:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- @JGHowes: at who is this comment directed exactly? Or did you just feel like spreading your wisdom? Multichill (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Deleted both Category:Images requiring attribution and Category:attribution after split up. Multichill (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Unnecessary category? The file format .GIF doesn't mean it MUST to be animated one? We have 10 000+ GIF files which are not animated. Animated GIFs can be easily filtrated by the bot (exists category:Animated GIF files) Estopedist1 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, there is not a need to sort images by GIF/JPG/etc. The exception is SVGs for certain types of images (e.g. flags and icons). Animated GIFs are their own beast and come under animations. Josh (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- As Estopedist1 says, GIFs support animation, and most GIFs are animated, but the file format does not force them to be.
- That said, we can't assume that all GIF files that are not in the Animated GIF files are necessarily still ones. I see both categories (Animated GIF files and Still GIF files) as complementary subcategories, the same way you can have (to give a synthetic example) a "vertical arrows" category with two subcategories, "arrows pointing up" and "arrows pointing down"; not only it makes sense to cover the entire "pointing direction" space with the subcategories rather than just half of it, but also the fact that an arrow isn't in one of the subcategories doesn't mean it automatically belongs in the other. --Waldyrious (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@Waldyrious, McZusatz, and Dispenser: I also mention that this discussion is affected by Category:Still GIF files affected by MediaWiki restrictions where is used phrase "Non-animated GIF files". Should we rename this category?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think it makes more sense to name things by what they are rather than what they are not, so my preference would be against renaming. That said, it's not a deal breaker — I don't feel as strongly about the category's name as I do about its existence. --Waldyrious (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1 and Waldyrious: Closed (no consensus to delete) Josh (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Convert to disambiguation page with (new) Category:Seals (emblem), Category:Seals (mechanical), and Category:Pinnipedia Themightyquill (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support fully, this makes sense, none of those uses is overwhelmingly common compared to the others. Josh (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support conversion to disambiguation. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support the animal gets 19,809 views compared to 6,455 for the emblem, Seal (mechanical) also gets 2,975. "Seal(s) to me brings to mind the animal and the mechanical first. A Google image search shows all of the results for the animals so clearly not primary. Note that Category:Seal is already a DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner, Crouch, Swale, and Auntof6: of course DAB, but maybe we merge category:Seal (already DAB) and category:Seals together into one DAB? Although enwiki keep them in different DABs: en:Seal and en:Seals--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe per w:WP:DABCOMBINE which does mention plurals but note that w:Seal and w:Seals are separate DAB pages. Also note that WP usually has the combined DAB at the singular form (such as w:Car (disambiguation)) but because we use plurals for classes of things we should probably place the DAB at the plural form. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Fine with me. Should also include Category:United States Navy SEALs.--Auntof6 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed with Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) that it should be plural. We are discussion Commons categories, so plural is the norm, versus WP articles, for which singular would be the norm (and I would add, not to mention an entirely different rationale as to what and when to dab). Josh (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- I would lean towards having separate DAB pages for 2 reasons, firstly WP has separate DAB pages and secondly a category redirect would still require users to have to click through it. However it doesn't matter that much and the main point of this CFD is that neither the singular or plural have a PT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed with Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) that it should be plural. We are discussion Commons categories, so plural is the norm, versus WP articles, for which singular would be the norm (and I would add, not to mention an entirely different rationale as to what and when to dab). Josh (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner, Crouch, Swale, and Auntof6: of course DAB, but maybe we merge category:Seal (already DAB) and category:Seals together into one DAB? Although enwiki keep them in different DABs: en:Seal and en:Seals--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Themightyquill, Auntof6, Estopedist1, and Crouch, Swale: Closed (consensus to move Category:Seals to Category:Seals (emblem) and for now leave a single redirect at Category:Seals) Josh (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
do we really need this upper category? What about "1111 symbols"? or "1110 symbols"? or "556 symbols"? Estopedist1 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- So long as there are a number of categories in the "quantity symbols" format, the index category is fine to hold them. As for "1111 symbols", if we have enough media of exactly 1111 symbols, then I guess it would be okay to have a category for them, but I doubt that being a real issue of concern, I think the highest quantity currently is 11. Josh (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Will there be as well 666 Symbols, or only '666 as a Symbol? What's the use of such Thingies by quantity categories? I can't come up with one single reason to keep any of these, they are completely and utterly superfluous. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sänger: Category:666 symbols does not exist, so your argument against it is rather moot. Josh (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- According to your argument, this category has to exist, or the whole branch of categories is moot. Either all numbers, or none. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sänger: Category:666 symbols does not exist, so your argument against it is rather moot. Josh (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Will there be as well 666 Symbols, or only '666 as a Symbol? What's the use of such Thingies by quantity categories? I can't come up with one single reason to keep any of these, they are completely and utterly superfluous. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, we need this category. User:Joshbaumgartner above is right, and User:Sänger is being unpolite but also (which is much worse) confusing the discussion by mentioning unrelated categories: Conflating Category:666 Symbols with Category:666 as a Symbol is either transparently misleading or extraordinarily dense — and neither has place in a healthy co-working environment. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment See also this forum shopping. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- This "forum shopping" was because if the previous inserted forum shopping items by one of the inventors of this nonsensical cats. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin and Sänger: This is the right forum for discussing the use of these categories. However, since both this category and Category:Animals by quantity are being discussed on essentially the same grounds, it would make sense to subsume one into the other so the discussion can happen in one place. That said, the arguments by Sänger (talk · contribs), while I would not assume they are intentionally misleading, do indeed cite a category that doesn't exist, and thus are a classic strawman argument and not really constructive to the discussion. Josh (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- As for a use case for these categories, the fact that some users do not have (or are unable to come up with) a reason to use such categories does not mean that either the categories do not have use to other users or that they should be deleted. During discussion on COM:AN, one user in fact cited a specific use for children learning to count. Helping children (or anyone for that matter) learn to count would indeed be a perfectly good reason for material to exist on this project. I would extend on that a bit and say that supporting users who may be looking for media to illustrate materials they are designing to teach mathematics to children or others would also be a fine reason to have such content. It may seem a bit base for those in the ivory tower, but the education of people, even on the simplest matters, is at the heart of why this project exists in the first place. Josh (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- So, do I get it right: You, as the one who wants this category, will take it upon you, to go through all pictures in Commons to categorise them according to this categories. As you think they all are good cats, all pics should be categorised accordingly. And, of course, is Category:666 symbols a required category according to your arguments. Graf Zahl will thank you for that]].
- These categories are not in a hierarchy for Categorie:Categories to help counting, bur stand for themselves in the symbols upper level cat. Some exemplary pictures in a dedicated Categorie:Symbols for counting learning could be fine, but this is a category, that should include all pictures of symbols anywhere on Commons. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Your unhelpful snide tone aside, yeah, that’s pretty much it. Of course, if you keep uncategorizing the affected files and deleting these categories, it will take longer. It would be really good, if you could drop the crusade and go back to work on useful stuff. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sänger, Joshbaumgartner, and Tuvalkin: user:Sänger have points. Seems to be heavy meta-categorizing and rather childish. Question is: do we really need Category:Objects by quantity (except maybe "SUBJECT/OBJECT in art by quantity", which is more developed) quarry ([3])):
- Category:Aircraft by quantity
- Category:Animals by quantity
- Category:Automobiles by quantity
- Category:Bicycles by quantity
- Category:Boys by quantity
- Category:Boys in art by quantity
- Category:Buses by quantity
- Category:Carts by quantity
- Category:Categories by quantity
- Category:Categories of London by quantity
- Category:Children by quantity
- Category:Children in art by quantity
- Category:Devices by quantity
- Category:Doors by quantity
- Category:Equipment by quantity
- Category:Equipment pieces by quantity
- Category:Females by quantity
- Category:Females in art by quantity
- Category:Flags by quantity
- Category:Girls by quantity
- Category:Girls in art by quantity
- Category:Groups of insects by quantity
- Category:Helicopters by quantity
- Category:Helix pomatia by quantity
- Category:Horses by quantity
- Category:Insects by quantity
- Category:Land vehicles by quantity
- Category:Lisbon trams by quantity
- Category:Machines by quantity
- Category:Males by quantity
- Category:Males in art by quantity
- Category:Men by quantity
- Category:Men in art by quantity
- Category:Motorcycles by quantity
- Category:Objects by quantity
- Category:Parts by quantity
- Category:People by quantity
- Category:People in art by quantity
- Category:Plots by quantity
- Category:Rail vehicles by quantity
- Category:Symbols by quantity
- Category:Tramlink trams by quantity
- Category:Trams by quantity
- Category:Trolleybuses by quantity
- Category:Trucks by quantity
- Category:Vehicles by quantity
- Category:Wagons by quantity
- Category:Women by quantity
- Category:Women in art by quantity
--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Yeah, Sänger has “points” and you have some too. You two keep coming up with new insults every time you try to engage in this kind of deletionism. Look, guy: If it seems childish to you, then look the other way. There’s a truckload of stuff here in Commons I detest, and about wich I could even articulate strong arguments against, but I don’t go around filing that stuff for deletion — I just tolerate it, by ignoring it. I strongly suggest you do the same about categorization you do not agree with — on narrowmindedness and faulty understanding of what Commons is. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: To answer your unfinished question, yes we need all those (and many more), and no, it’s not okay with me to delete some because they are not “developed”: they will never get developed if you keep deleting them, after all.
- Also: The haphazard way you listed these categories, here above, instead of in a nested hierarchy reflecting a cladogram (e.g.: Lisbon trams < trams < rail vehicles < vehicles < objects) — that was a mallicious ruse trying to mislead unaware bystanders into thinking that this is just a “childish” mess, or it’s just reflecting your technical shortcomings and/or inability to understand how categories work?… (Et avec ça ends my envolvement in this dialogue with you two: It’s either bad faith or incompetence on your part, or both, and I will engage with neither.)
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sänger, Estopedist1, and Tuvalkin: Keep The reductio ad absurdum by Sanger that Commons can only have a category structure if a user volnteers to sort 'every file on Commons' is unreasonable: no user is ever going to be able to go through every file on Commons to apply any particular categorization. Shall we delete 'by country' categories on the basis that no user will take it upon themself to go through all files on Commons to categorize them by country? Of course not. It is also wrong that they are "not in a hierarchy for Categorie:Categories to help counting"; that category is simply named Category:Groups, and it exists. Calling these categories childish is also no insult; I would hope that Commons is able to count children amongst the beneficiaries of this project. In the end, none of these arguments are a compelling case for deletion, as none demonstrate an actual harm to the project by keeping these categories, nor have they proven there is no possible benefit to keeping them. Deletion requires demonstrating harm that outweighs demonstrated benefit to such a degree that deletion is deemed the only fix. None of the statements presented here do that. Josh (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: "childish" doesn’t mean "aimed at children" nor even "done/made by children" but rather "done/made by adults whose abilities are immature and unprepared, akin to those of children". Which works as an insult. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sänger, Estopedist1, and Tuvalkin:
- Keep: Since we’re voting, here’s my unambiguous vote to keep these and all other such categories. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: Not so much voting... but I find that for longer discussions it is sometimes helpful to add a visual distinction to show at a glance where I am at on the matter. As for the 'childish' bit, I certainly wouldn't characterize any efforts or categories as childish myself, just trying not to presume mal intent on the part of others. Josh (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin, Joshbaumgartner, Auntof6, Themightyquill, and Sänger: sorry for the word "childish". But let's assume this "by quantity" stuff is in project scope. It certainly encouraged to create something like "2 red bridges", "4 yellow pencils" ... --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- If you want to come up with an example of a ridiculous category, you’ll easy find a many (a few years ago we deleted some horrible JPEG tables that listed celebrities by their zodiac sign…), but the slippery slope caveat is almost always a fallacy: After all, if we start creating some basic categories, such as Category:Animals, that certainly encourages others to eventually create Category:Swimming white animals seen from above by century… meaning that’s better to create no categories at all?
- But, anyway — so what? If there’d be media files in those putative categories you made up and those files were also categorized according to other criteria, what’d be the problem? If you have 3 or 4 million images of pencils, you sure will want to categorize them by number and color (and brand, date, background, sharpness, cross section shape, length, setting, position, framing, and more).
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin, Joshbaumgartner, Auntof6, Themightyquill, and Sänger: sorry for the word "childish". But let's assume this "by quantity" stuff is in project scope. It certainly encouraged to create something like "2 red bridges", "4 yellow pencils" ... --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
somewhat more hierarchical to show depth of subcategories:
--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Now you show us that these cats have subcats. And your point is…? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Experienced users may get ideas if they see the system. Eg to show unsystematical approach: eg sometimes there are categories with "many", eg category:Many automobiles. I also see in 2016 was related discussion: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_62#Massive_creation_of_questionable_categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Experienced users and newbies alike would be better served if you get to your point instead of listing an apparently unrelated grabbag of disparate categories and their subcat tree. It’s not evident what you are trying to show. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Categories of many are fine, as to whether they strictly should be under 'by quantity' is a fair question, but rather unimportant. There are clearly people who find no use in these categories, and just as clearly there are those that do find use in them. Thus they should be kept. Josh (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@Estopedist1, Tuvalkin, and Sänger: Closed (no consensus to delete) Josh (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Mindmatrix (talk · contribs) requested a move to Category:Assumption Park (Windsor, Ontario). Currently that is a redirect in the opposite direction as a result of a recent move by JasonCarswell (talk · contribs). However, both are empty of files, so unless they can be populated, shouldn't they just be both deleted? If populated, the name question should be settled before making another rename/move. Josh (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Neither commons nor English wikipedia has any reference to another assumption park. Would Category:Assumption Park be a possibility? If not, I'd prefer to see it at Category, Assumption Park, Windsor. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: It's been almost 2 years since I "overhauled" and resorted all of the Windsor, Ontario images. I don't recall specifics of my efforts then regarding these two folders, but in general I would hope empty categories would start to have images filed into them and IMO it's just a matter of time before this happens. As far as naming conventions go, I'm in favour of simplicity and consistency so that all parks in that need the extra clarification would stick to "in Windsor, Ontario" or "(Windsor, Ontario)". If there is a standard I'd like to learn about it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Over the next couple weeks I'll see if I can do another resort for Windsor images again (and add a few of my own). This time I won't have a big learning curve. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Assumption Park per COM:DAB, there is no ambiguity. If you search "'assumption park' -windsor -ontario", the only results you get are some random streets called "Assumption Park" and a church called St. Mary of the Assumption in Park City, Utah. There is no topic other than the Ontario park which is ever likely to get a Commons category. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill, JasonCarswell, and King of Hearts: This category is empty and has been for a year at least it would seem. Any reason we have to hang on to this? It can be recreated easily enough once contents are identified for it. Josh (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted as empty, no prejudice against recreation if ever populated. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The naming of metric cartridges is all over the map in this category. A standard format should be decided on and applied. Josh (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Current names in use include various different formats:
- Category:9 × 19 mm Parabellum: (diameter) (space) (special ×) (space) (lenth) (mm) (space) (name): Full dimension format using special × with name or code appended.
- Category:13 × 64 mm: (diameter) (space) (special ×) (space) (length) (space) (mm): Full dimension format using special × without name or code
- Category:10.75 x 58mm R: (diameter) (space) (normal x) (space) (length) (mm) (space) (code): Hybrid dimension format (spaced x, non-spaced unit) using normal x and name or code appended.
- Category:20 x 102 mm: (diameter) (space) (normal x) (space) (length) (space) (mm): Full dimension format using normal x when no name is needed or associated with the cartridge.
- Category:13.25×92 mm SR TuF: (diameter) (special ×) (length) (space) (mm) (space) (code): Hybrid dimension format (non-spaced ×, spaced unit) with code.
- Category:12.7×108 mm: (diameter) (special ×) (length) (space) (mm): Hybrid dimension format (non-spaced ×, spaced unit) without associated name or code.
- Category:10.4×38mm Swiss Rimfire: (diameter) (special ×) (length) (mm) (space) (name): Compact dimension format using special × with full name appended.
- Category:10.4x47mmR: (diameter) (normal x) (length) (mm) (code): Compact dimension format using normal x with name appeded without a space.
- Category:5mm/35 SMc: (diameter) (mm) (/) (length) (space) (name): Compact slashed dimension format with name appended
- Category:7x57R: (diameter) (normal x) (length) (code): Unit-less dimension format using normal x with code appended without a space
- Category:10.75x68: (diameter) (normal x) (length): Unit-less dimension format using normal x.
- Category:7.5mm Nagant: (diameter) (mm) (space) (name): Diameter-only dimension format without unit space with name appended
- Category:7.62 Tokarev: (diameter) (space) (name): Unit-less diameter-only dimension with name appended
There are probably some other variations I missed, but more than a dozen different formats is enough to warrant some amount of harmonization. At first approach, it would seem that format number 1 or 3 above (with 2 or 4 as an alternate if no reasonable name is appropriate to append) would be the best for readability, as most of the others are various ways to list the information in more compact forms. Since readability of category names is more important that an absolute minimum character count (afterall, "9 × 19 mm Parabellum" is not exactly a super long name anyway), that would be my leaning. Standard 'x' is certainly better for accessability for users, but perhaps there is a case that '×' is more technically correct from some perspective so should be the direction to go. Josh (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Side note for this discussion: I would recommend that any cartridge which is known by multiple common names have redirects in place for those names, and that if we go with special '×' that redirects using normal 'x' be in place as well for each of them. Josh (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly support using a regular x rather than ×. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Closed (standardize with 'D x L mm Name' format for cartridges) Josh (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Move to Category:Dibba, Oman or Category:Dibba Al-Baya to disambiguate from Category:Dibba (Fujairah) Themightyquill (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps keep Category:Dibba as a disambiguation linked to en:Dibba. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom, there seems to be several that are in different countries, see GeoNames. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Themightyquill.--Brunei (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Moved to dab page and Category:Dibba Al-Baya. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Icons or logos? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think they're icons, although some look like icons of logos. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Closed - category is fulfilling its purpose of holding icons
| Category:Jammu and Kashmir | Move to/Rename as | Category:Jammu and Kashmir (state) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "To disambiguate against Category:Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)" per move request | |||
| DeluxeVegan (talk · contribs) per move request | |||
- Support as this seems in line with the latest legal changes in India. Keep Category:Jammu and Kashmir as a dab. Josh (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Just to be clear (and excuse my ignorance), is Jammu and Kashmir (state) exactly overlapping with Category:Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Not really: The former state of Jammu-and-Kashmur is split into two new Union territories:
- To the West, bordering Pakistan, the new Union territory of Jammu-and-Kashmir (itself split between the "region" of Jammu in the south, wih Hindouist majority, and the "region" of Indian Kashmir to the north, with muslem majority). India also claims the part of Jammu-and Kashmir (and of the former British Kashmir) controled by Pakistan to the west of the current control line
- To the East, bordering China, the new Union territory of Ladakh. India also claims the part of the former British Kashmir controled by China to the north-east, as well as the part formerly controled by pakistan to the north and bordering China, that Pakistan ceaded to China; however India has extended its controled area over a tringular part that Pakistan kept to the North and bordering China, but Pakistan still claims that area.
- Another part of the former Kingdom of Kashmir was occupied by China when the British Empire was still there: that part was claimed by its maharadjah, but after the independance of India, the Kingdom was abolished and the state of Jammu-and-Kahsmir was created, but India (which was then still unified with Pakistan) did not claim that area, just like it did not recognize the claim made by the former Kingdom of Kashmir, perceived as "cooperating" with the British Empire before the independance.
- So the split of Kashmir is a complicate situation: it was divided since the former kingdom, where the British ruler weakened the role of the Maharadjah and did not protect the territory from Chinese expansion to the North. After the independance of India, and troubles in the new Republic between, China invaded another bordering part just when India and Pakistan were separated after a civil war. Since the separation of Pakistan and Bangladesh from India, the former civil war became a situation of never-ending war between the two new countries of Pakistan and India, for defining their border. The most problematic case was in the small Indian region of Kashmir (to the north-west) with the muslem majority, rather than in Ladask (Buddhists to the East) and Jammu (Hinduists to the South). There's also been territorial troubles between India and China to the north-east, but not so critical and in fact China now de factor controls an area that India can no longer claim or defend.
- In 2019, the former Indian state of Jammu-and-Kashmir was dissolved to create a stable union territory in Ladakh, and isolate the conflict in the separate Jamu-and-Kashmire Union territory. May be this last territory will be divided again by separating Jammu from Kashmir (essentially around the Valley of Kashmir), but this union is still maintained to avoid loss of control of Kashmir. All parties in the region are arguing that the areas they don't control are "occupied".
- So the area has never been really unified even in the time of the old Kingdom of Kashmir, where there were already conflicts between muslems, Hinduists, Buddhists, Chineses: the former Maharadjah did not control everything from its former two capitals, and its power became very weak during the British Empire.
- So now there's a need to distinguish the former larger state and the newer smaller territory. The situation is still not ended because the two new tertiories still don't have their legislature (elections won't happend before 2021), and for now this is governed directly by the Federation, under martial law and many politicians (notably those muslems in the Valley of Kashmir) of the former State of the Union have been arrested. It's not clear how elections will happen in 2021 when not all parties are represented and allowed to campaign. verdy_p
- Now IMHO, the former (larger) state should be renamed "Kashmir and Jammu (former state)" and the new (smaller) Union territory just named "Kashmir and Jammu".
- There's also the need to keep "Kashmir" as is for the whole area controled by the 3 countries (CN, IN and PK). But there's the need to create another category "Kashmir (Jammu and Kashmir)" for the northern muslem part of this Union territory of India (including the Valley of Kashmir and the former capital) to separate it from "Jammu" to the South of the new territory. (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support the page move. The page move should ideally be uncontroversial. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Involved closure to rename, since there is no argument for status quo. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
seems to be that Template:Information/author processing is not used anymore? Cat and template to be deleted? Estopedist1 (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Estopedist1 Yes Template:Information/author processing is no longer used for last couple months. I even deleted it for a while. However according to Special:MostTranscludedPages, which "was last updated 05:11, 22 January 2020", it is "used on 28,775,911 pages". TemplateCount tool also gives 28,844,719 transclusions. So this category categorizing every page transcluding the template, should stay until we find those pages or resolve why the database is giving us wrong results. --Jarekt (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think it’s simply a lagg, although a quite serious one. The good news is that this lag is slowly but constantly decreasing. For example the TemplateCount tool now reports only 28,839,448 transclusions (5271 pages drop in two hours). I hope that the usage list will become empty (or nearly empty) in a few months—the count was ca. 4M pages more a month ago, so by linear extrapolation the usage list should become accurate by the end of August. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Jarekt. By the way, my above estimation was way too optimistic, the category became empty only by 7 December 2020. (Yes, I set up a daily cron job to create statistics about how was the count decreasing…) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
What exactly is meant by the title& 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4: something like Category:3D (three-dimensional space). Enwiki has eg en:X–Y–Z matrix--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- If it is “something like” its supercategory, it should probably be merged into it? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: ping. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: Arlo Barnes has redirected the page. It may or may not be pointing to the desired page now. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have, yes. It seemed the matter had concluded so I thought it would be handy to point to a useful category (I've no strong feelings about which, but it seems to me the only semantic content of "X, Y, Z" is that those letters are displayed). This allows tools like HotCat to do the right thing. Arlo James Barnes 22:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Resolved. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Category:Demonstration against abortion at the University of Toronto (17 November 2009) already exists Trade (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Trade: if it was one-day demonstration, then the redirect or deletion should be done--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Redirected Estopedist1 (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Decorated fountains for clarity Themightyquill (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I fully agree with this proposal. --MHM (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Renamed per nomination Estopedist1 (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
misleading name (in Commons we have galleries not articles (is in enwiki)) and one member cat? Potentially can be endless category tree. To be deleted? Estopedist1 (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- My mistake. I support moving to Category:Galleries containing non-English-language text. Evrik (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Evrik, Auntof6, Themightyquill, Joshbaumgartner, and Crouch, Swale: I think it is rational to delete this category. Otherwise, will be precedent for categories like "Categories containing non-English-language text", "Templates containing non-English-language text", "Files containing non-English-language text". Also this kind of solutions should be automated not manually done--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. First, as noted above, Commons doesn't have articles. Second, this is a multilingual project (except for category names), so it shouldn't be noteworthy that galleries (or files or templates) have non-English text. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Auntof6 that since this is a multilingual project this isn't useful (and should be moved to Category:Galleries containing non-English-language text). Commons:Galleries#Naming conventions says "Unlike naming categories, where English is almost always used, galleries should be named in language most associated with the subject". Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Evrik, Crouch, Swale, and Auntof6: I started to delete this category and one subcategory. But if we look single gallery (Hanukkah), then this is somehow connected to embedded categories/template(s). Maybe templates should be also deleted. I hope Evrik as the creator will finish this--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- I had intended on populating this and fixing up the templates, especially in text in non Roman font. Evrik (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Evrik: Hanukkah still have an embedded category "category:Articles containing Hebrew-language text". If this embedded category is removed we can delete category tree Category:Galleries containing non-English-language text--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is fixed. Howeer, I do want to keep, Category:Galleries containing non-English-language text. Evrik (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Evrik: I hope other user support my view to delete this category tree. If some similar category tree is done and maintained by a bot, I can re-evaluate the situation--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is fixed. Howeer, I do want to keep, Category:Galleries containing non-English-language text. Evrik (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Evrik: Hanukkah still have an embedded category "category:Articles containing Hebrew-language text". If this embedded category is removed we can delete category tree Category:Galleries containing non-English-language text--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, as the creator, I asked that the above-referenced empty category is deleted. Eventually, I'd like to populate this with more Hebrew galleries, and galleries from other languages. Evrik (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Any further developments? I am thinking that such kind of language-specific categorization of galleries may have some usefulness, when named like "Category:Galleries captioned in Hebrew language", "Category:Galleries captioned in Chinese language" etc. The current style "Category:Galleries containing Hebrew-language text" should be clearly ambigious and unhelpful. Just think that if Foo gallery contains JUST ONE Hebrew-language word then it should go this category. This should be nonsense. Noticing participants @Auntof6, Evrik, and Crouch, Swale: --Estopedist1 (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Since the category has already been deleted, it's probably time to close this. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- sounds reasonable. My last comment should be in a new CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete, Category:Galleries containing non-English-language text still exists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The only video coding format created by the Alliance for Open Media is AV1. A future format is in research phase and doesn't even have a name yet. Therefore it can't be said that a "series of video coding formats" exist in any meaningful way. When/if another format is created, then this category might be useful. In the meantime, this category should be deleted. -- Veikk0.ma (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Done: empty, thus deleted. --rubin16 (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Any particular reason to use "Great Britain" here? Themightyquill (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: subcategories and files should be upmerged. And we already have category:Civil engineering in the United Kingdom--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Sculptures in England by county to match parent? Themightyquill (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was move to match parent Estopedist1 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
step-by-step we should categorise these subcategories better until we have 0 subcategories. Then the bots can change destination to, for example, category:commons media maintenance, category:WikiProject Aviation. After that, one suspicious "waste" container category again liquidated Estopedist1 (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep this is a good grouping of categories that need attention. It serves a purpose. I don't see how deleting this category will improve Commons. Multichill (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- we also have Category:Media needing category review--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- That category is for {{Check categories}}. All the subcategories are added by that template. You shouldn't have put manual categories like Category:Media needing category review by subject and Category:Media needing category review by source in this tree because these are not added by the template thus in the wrong place. Multichill (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- in addition the note "to be check", "check needed" etc is actually redundant in cases like "Files by the SOURCE/CREATOR" (eg Category:Photographs by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization). These categories are permanent members here: Category:Media needing category review by source or Category:Media needing category review by creator--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- These to check categories are to do lists. Something needs to be done with these files usually as part of a project. Sometimes it's categorization, but it can also be to check if it fits a photo competition format. All are intended to be looked at by a human, do something and remove the category as indication that it was checked. By just upmerging some of these categories you skipped this check step. Multichill (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- we also have Category:Media needing category review--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep In the end, switching around from Category:Media needing category review to Category:To be checked to Category:Unidentified objects or Category:Buildings in unidentified countries or Category:Uncategorized (and millions other categories) does not move categorization issues further an inch. Categorization is hard and tedious work. The promise, everything will be better with structured data, did never come near to true. @Estopedist1: instead of doing such meta optimizations you could move the project further by doing real categorization. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep Fully agree with Multichill. I agree with the premise that the subcategories need to be categorized, but until it's done, there's no point in deleting this 'heads-up' label.JiriMatejicek (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Multichill, JiriMatejicek, and Herzi Pinki: almost always the case is to categorize properly. And it should be said to the header of the category (or in the name of the category) if something other is also needed. If it is said, it can be put here: Category:To be checked. This CFD can be closed, let's see how populate this maintenance category will be--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep I just stumbled upon this category looking to do some categorization work. I found it to be useful and plan on working on subcategorizing some of these. -- OlEnglish (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Estopedist1 (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
No need to capitalise every word. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was rename. Enwiki has same solution Estopedist1 (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Champasak (town) to disambiguate from Category:Kingdom of Champasak and Category:Champasak Province. Themightyquill (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree and make Category:Champasak a dab? Josh (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree en:Champasak is also a DAB--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Move contend to Category:Champasak (town) and disambiguated. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The BFR is not a thing anymore. I suggest deletion of the category. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- This category should simply be moved to SpaceX Starship and the BFR-specific images moved back here. It is part of the evolution of Starship, and still holds a place as a relevant category...its images were simply prematurely moved elsewhere. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Or to Category:Big Falcon Rocket? But Support a move in any case as ambiguous per w:BFR. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Or to Category:Big Falcon Rocket? But
- I like spelling the acronyms out, but there's another option: Wikidata links to en:BFR (rocket), so we could also use Category:BFR (rocket). - Themightyquill (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, but wasn't "Big Falcon Rocket" a fan and media term, rather than anything SpaceX officially referred to it as? If so, then BFR (rocket) would be my preference. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I like spelling the acronyms out, but there's another option: Wikidata links to en:BFR (rocket), so we could also use Category:BFR (rocket). - Themightyquill (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Involved closure, result is keep and rename to BFR (rocket). --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Weirdly titled category because the images are of the Interplanetary Transport System. Therefore, I suggest to move this category to "Interplanetary Transport System". Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The CFD is pointless because the move would be uncontroversial. --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 07:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
uncontroversial move. Discussion was closed by the nominator on 24 April 2020 --Estopedist1 (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
from talk page:
1826? Painter is (1868-1943)!
Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Estopedist1 (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Jacquesverlaeken: @Estopedist1:
- Paulista Museum is the institution where the painting is and that “commissioned” it. In the 20th century, the institution hired several painters to paint artworks based on photographs, illustrations and other images in general from Brazil in previous centuries. It is the case of this work, which was made in the 20th century, but portrays the year 1826. “Cena do Porto de Santos, 1826” is the official title of the artwork.[1][2]
- In the category's infobox, the creation date is “20th century”, since the exact date of its production was not recorded. However, the scene in the painting is from 1826.
- This process is explored in “The São Paulo museum: Affonso de Taunay and the national memory, 1917-1945”, by Ana Cláudia Fonseca Brefe, and in “Ornamentation of the São Paulo Museum for the First Centenary: construction of national identity in the 1920s”, by Miyoko Makino.--GiFontenelle (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for this clarification, it will help in finding the most appropriate categories! Discussion is closed for me. Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Gi. Admins, can we close this CfD? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
References
Resolved. Explanation is added to category's header Estopedist1 (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
| Category:JPG by country | Delete | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| This is an unnecessary vertical redundancy of Category:JPG flags by country. Generally, there is no need to index JPG files by country. | |||
| Josh (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
- Delete--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
same as category:Fuji Xerox? Estopedist1 (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Japanese Wikipedia has two standalone articles, so I guess that Fuji Xerox is parent company, and Akita Xerox is its subsidiary. Discussion can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was not merge Estopedist1 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
merge this to Category:Saint Martin and the beggar, which is the same and in the preferred English language. @Bycro: as cat-creator. Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Same for all subcategories. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The result was merge. Subcategories are renamed Estopedist1 (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
| Category:Bird animations | Move to/Rename as | Category:Animations of Aves | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estopedist1 (talk · contribs) per move request | |||
Currently, Category:Animations of Aves is a redirect to Category:Bird animations. This move would reverse this. Since Category:Birds and Category:Aves are both maintained as separate categories with Aves as the parent. Thus this move seems to make sense if we are only going to have one category for animations of birds/aves. Josh (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
stale discussion. The result was move Estopedist1 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:Beach Koromachno | Move to/Rename as | Category:Koromačna Beach | |
| "The official name of this beach in English is: "Koromačno Beach". --Vhorvat (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)" per move request | |||
| Vhorvat (talk · contribs) per move request | |||
- Logic for this move seems fine, but I find both names used on searches yet have not found an official name. Josh (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- The most important thing about the user who created this category, he does not speak Croatian, so he used transliteration of our name "Koromačno" → "Koromachno". Search engines on the internet find a lot of bad translations like this, many do not know that in English the convention is that the "beach", if part of the title goes after its name and does it with a capital letter and does not appear in front of the name. First, I refer to the English form of beach names below the basic category for Croatia: Category:Beaches of Croatia. Secondly, look at how Google Translate translates when we set up a very famous beach from hr: "plaža Copacabana" we get on en: "Copacabana Beach".
- When determining the official name, it appears many times in the Croatian language in several forms of local type, in this case: "Koromačno" and "Koromačna". Since, according to good sources, I noticed that this beach is located in the cove called "Koromačna Cove" (Croatian: uvala Koromačna). I had a similar example before, in Istria near the town of Pula that both the cove and the beach are in the same place, and people have slightly distorted the name for the beach, so this later became official. Previously, because of this, I did not want to insist on change "Koromačno" → "Koromačna", but I have now noticed that newspapers and tourist boards use a second name. Further today I went to check the official cadastral portal here: [4]. And so I concluded that official name is: Koromačna Beach, and in that way I would ask that you take that into consideration.
- I have to emphasize that on the coast of the Istria peninsula 35 km NW there is a village Koromačno, which owns beaches, which also contributes to the confusion. -Vhorvat (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I almost forgot one very important link. The official tourist board of Croatia has on English: Koromačna Beach. Otherwise, in the Croatian language, as well as in some other languages, it is natural that the "beach" (hr plaža) goes in front of the name, so that many of our portals literally translate into English, which is not correct. -Vhorvat (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Vhorvat: Thanks for the elaboration. I agree with your conclusion and support the rename. Your original move request listed the name as "Koromačno Beach", but now you are saying "Koromačna Beach". Just checking to make sure we get the correct spelling before adopting this. Josh (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Yes, the name of the beach is definitely "Koromačna Beach". -Vhorvat (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Vhorvat: I have updated the proposal above to reflect the new spelling. Josh (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Thanks. -Vhorvat (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Vhorvat: I have updated the proposal above to reflect the new spelling. Josh (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Yes, the name of the beach is definitely "Koromačna Beach". -Vhorvat (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Vhorvat: Thanks for the elaboration. I agree with your conclusion and support the rename. Your original move request listed the name as "Koromačno Beach", but now you are saying "Koromačna Beach". Just checking to make sure we get the correct spelling before adopting this. Josh (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I almost forgot one very important link. The official tourist board of Croatia has on English: Koromačna Beach. Otherwise, in the Croatian language, as well as in some other languages, it is natural that the "beach" (hr plaža) goes in front of the name, so that many of our portals literally translate into English, which is not correct. -Vhorvat (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have to emphasize that on the coast of the Istria peninsula 35 km NW there is a village Koromačno, which owns beaches, which also contributes to the confusion. -Vhorvat (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
stale discussion. The result was rename Estopedist1 (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
| Category:Black water hole (Lemberk) | Merge into | Category:Černé jezírko (Lvová) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "in maps its called Černé jezírko, I am not aware of this name" per move request | |||
| Juandev (talk · contribs) per move request | |||
- Support matches naming of others in Category:Ponds in Liberec District. Josh (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
stale discussion. The result was rename Estopedist1 (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
notability? Google have only this ([5])? One red link in enwiki, but different person. Estopedist1 (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Speedy keep: Notability is not a criterion for Commons’ categories. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- UK Director International Trade Policy, Department of Trade and Industry seems prominent enough that I don't think should be questioned anyway, even if notability was a requirement. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed with Tuvalkin (talk · contribs), it is not a question of notability. If we have files depicting a subject, a proper category for that subject is warranted. If the files are out of scope or such, then they need to be deleted through proper process before the category can be eliminated. That said, I think Themightyquill (talk · contribs) makes a good point and there is no question this individual is public enough that these images and category are appropriate. Josh (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed to, if the files are outside scope they need to be deleted, then this will be deleted as empty, I don't think notability is an issue considering there are 4 images and more could be added at anytime. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- And given as noted the red link (at w:Gutter Anthems) maybe we should disambiguate this category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- I would maybe say notability isn't completely irrelevant for categories because of verifiability, BLP violations, hoaxes etc. Categories like a person's occupation and birth/death dates would presumably go on the files in the absence of a category anyway. Surprisingly we don't have a guideline like w:Wikipedia:Overcategorization (though Commons:Categories#Categorization tips does say "even if there exist more images of an ordinary person or incidental event, it is practical to group them into special category and categorize the category instead of categorize all similar images individually to identical set of parent categories") note that w:WP:SUBCAT is the equivalent of COM:OVERCAT. I plan at some point to write an essay on category notability but in most cases its probably not relevant since any of a category's files can probably be deleted at DR and then the category can be speedily deleted as empty. Things like the number of images in the category should probably count, if a category has 10 or more images or has a sub category it should probably be classified as being notable for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- And given as noted the red link (at w:Gutter Anthems) maybe we should disambiguate this category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed to, if the files are outside scope they need to be deleted, then this will be deleted as empty, I don't think notability is an issue considering there are 4 images and more could be added at anytime. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed with Tuvalkin (talk · contribs), it is not a question of notability. If we have files depicting a subject, a proper category for that subject is warranted. If the files are out of scope or such, then they need to be deleted through proper process before the category can be eliminated. That said, I think Themightyquill (talk · contribs) makes a good point and there is no question this individual is public enough that these images and category are appropriate. Josh (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
stale discussion. No consensus to delete. Notability-notice is added to the category in question Estopedist1 (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Categories should not be based on properties (like open/resolved) that may change in future. Instead, open problems and resolved problems should be joined in one category. The same applies to its subcategories. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep @Jochen Burghardt: enwiki has well-developed: en:Category:Open problems.--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. Enwiki has the same category Estopedist1 (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
| Category:Occupation of Istanbul | Move to/Rename as | Category:Occupation of Constantinople | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "The *entire* city was known as "Constantinople" at the time, and the English Wikipedia article uses "Occupation of Constantinople" - Note that Category:Siege of Leningrad uses that title instead of Siege of Saint Petersburg." | |||
| WhisperToMe (talk · contribs) per move request | |||
- Support I agree with the logic. I transitioned this one to a CfD to be aired out as it involved a potentially political change of place name. Josh (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, we the occupied prefer, and used at that time also, Istanbul as we do today. Also have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Birleşik Krallık Osmanlı koloni bayrağı.png. --E4024 (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was rename Estopedist1 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Map data of constituent countries of the Kingdom of Netherlands. Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten are not part of the Netherlands, only part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Themightyquill (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: stale discussion. You are free to execute our proposal Estopedist1 (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Map data of constituent countries of the Kingdom of Netherlands. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
| Category:Two Bridges | Move to/Rename as | Category:Two Bridges, New York | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Category:Two bridges | Disambiguate | Wikimedia disambiguation category | |
| Disambiguate "two bridges" (Category:2 bridges, Category:Two Bridges, New York (new name), Category:Two Bridges, Devon. While the NY one may be a bit more common than the other, it is not so night-and-day as to mean we can't have a dab. | |||
| Josh (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
- I.m.o. Category:Two Bridges should be a disambiguation page for those two toponyms; those two (and any other) should be under Category:2 bridges; finally Category:Two bridges should remaind a redirect to Category:2 bridges. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Tuvalkin's proposal per w:WP:DABNAME ("The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives") since all the other entries are proper nouns. The lower case could indeed stay as a redirect to 2 bridges or retargeted to the upper case DAB page but either way readers will have 2 clicks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: Commons categories have their own peculiarities when it comes to dab pages, so w:WP:DABNAME does not really apply here, and for good reason. It is problematic to have two identically named categories (including redirects) when the only difference between them is capitalization. If indeed they warrant having separate categories, then better parenthetical dab info should be added. The reason is that when you type into the search, regardless of how you capitalize your input, you will be presented with two otherwise identical names, merely with a letter capitalized or not between them. For many users, especially those speaking non-English languages with different capitalization rules, this can be very confusing. Thus having the dab info in () in the name is the preferred method as from the search results users will have a clearer definition of what each category contains. Note we are dabbing categories here, whereas WP dabs are primarily article dabs. Categories should be disambiguated at the name with the broadest scope, hence the lower case is preferred if there are different capitalization formats used for different subjects (abc, Abc, ABC, etc.) as it is the most generic format. If it is deemed meaningful to have a separate Two Bridges dab for populated places, it should have parenthetical dab info to reflect why it exists, so Category:Two Bridges (populated place) as a dab would be okay, but having both Category:Two bridges and Category:Two Bridges, even as redirects, is a problem. Josh (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: my reference to DABNAME was to the choice of the title of the DAB page namely "Two Bridges" not "Two bridges" (as I'm assuming you're not suggesting we have an identical DAB at both titles) since all other uses are Upper Case. Commons has no guidance on this so we defer to WP on this. Note that having 2 names that only differ in capitalization has been used (such as Category:Duck sauce and Category:Duck Sauce) but we tend to be less ambiguous here so we might disambiguate even if this is possible (and place a DAB at the Title Case version) see examples of Category:The Police and Category:Iron Maiden where we have disambiuated even though WP hasn't. Because we have less images on albums and films (and similar) there will be less occasions this happens anyway. In any case we could still redirect "Two bridges" to the "Two Bridges" DAB instead of leaving it as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: I'm certainly not suggesting we have a dab at both 'Two bridges' and 'Two Bridges', as there are hardly enough categories linked to make that worth anything. I'm fine with the dab being named 'Two Bridges' versus 'Two bridges'. What I disagree with is the proposal to keep Category:Two bridges as a redirect to Category:2 bridges. Having both capitalization variations going in different directions is a bad idea. Josh (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: my reference to DABNAME was to the choice of the title of the DAB page namely "Two Bridges" not "Two bridges" (as I'm assuming you're not suggesting we have an identical DAB at both titles) since all other uses are Upper Case. Commons has no guidance on this so we defer to WP on this. Note that having 2 names that only differ in capitalization has been used (such as Category:Duck sauce and Category:Duck Sauce) but we tend to be less ambiguous here so we might disambiguate even if this is possible (and place a DAB at the Title Case version) see examples of Category:The Police and Category:Iron Maiden where we have disambiuated even though WP hasn't. Because we have less images on albums and films (and similar) there will be less occasions this happens anyway. In any case we could still redirect "Two bridges" to the "Two Bridges" DAB instead of leaving it as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: Commons categories have their own peculiarities when it comes to dab pages, so w:WP:DABNAME does not really apply here, and for good reason. It is problematic to have two identically named categories (including redirects) when the only difference between them is capitalization. If indeed they warrant having separate categories, then better parenthetical dab info should be added. The reason is that when you type into the search, regardless of how you capitalize your input, you will be presented with two otherwise identical names, merely with a letter capitalized or not between them. For many users, especially those speaking non-English languages with different capitalization rules, this can be very confusing. Thus having the dab info in () in the name is the preferred method as from the search results users will have a clearer definition of what each category contains. Note we are dabbing categories here, whereas WP dabs are primarily article dabs. Categories should be disambiguated at the name with the broadest scope, hence the lower case is preferred if there are different capitalization formats used for different subjects (abc, Abc, ABC, etc.) as it is the most generic format. If it is deemed meaningful to have a separate Two Bridges dab for populated places, it should have parenthetical dab info to reflect why it exists, so Category:Two Bridges (populated place) as a dab would be okay, but having both Category:Two bridges and Category:Two Bridges, even as redirects, is a problem. Josh (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Instead I suggest the name Category:Two Bridges, Manhattan. ----DanTD (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with DanTD and suggest the name Category:Two Bridges, Manhattan. 🇪🇵🇮🇨🇬🇪🇳🇮🇺🇸 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- @DanTD and Epicgenius: What do you oppose, then, exactly? Looks like everybody here agrees that this category is ambiguous and should be renamed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't believe anybody here disagrees with the reasons for the renaming per se. The reason for the opposition is that when it comes to naming conventions for any neighborhood in New York City, we go by the Borough. If Two Bridges were in Brooklyn, we'd go with "Two Bridges, Brooklyn." But it's in Manhattan. We're not going to call it "Two Bridges, New York," or "Two Bridges, New York City" or anything like that. --DanTD (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- I also oppose "Two Bridges, New York" because it is not specific. That title assumes it is a community in New York State outside of New York City, and also does not match with the Wikipedia article title, which is Two Bridges, Manhattan. However, "Two Bridges, Manhattan" is acceptable since it is a neighborhood in Manhattan, NYC, and NYC neighborhoods are disambiguated by their borough generally (see Category:Neighborhoods in Manhattan, New York City). I am not in opposition to the move, just to the proposed title. epicgenius (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Epicgenius brought up another issue I didn't even consider. Yes, the proposed title is usually reserved for communities outside of New York City. So bring on "Category:Two Bridges, Manhattan." ----DanTD (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Update -- Is this issue still being dealt with? I'm still awaiting the renaming of this category as "Two Bridges, Manhattan." ----DanTD (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Epicgenius brought up another issue I didn't even consider. Yes, the proposed title is usually reserved for communities outside of New York City. So bring on "Category:Two Bridges, Manhattan." ----DanTD (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- I also oppose "Two Bridges, New York" because it is not specific. That title assumes it is a community in New York State outside of New York City, and also does not match with the Wikipedia article title, which is Two Bridges, Manhattan. However, "Two Bridges, Manhattan" is acceptable since it is a neighborhood in Manhattan, NYC, and NYC neighborhoods are disambiguated by their borough generally (see Category:Neighborhoods in Manhattan, New York City). I am not in opposition to the move, just to the proposed title. epicgenius (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't believe anybody here disagrees with the reasons for the renaming per se. The reason for the opposition is that when it comes to naming conventions for any neighborhood in New York City, we go by the Borough. If Two Bridges were in Brooklyn, we'd go with "Two Bridges, Brooklyn." But it's in Manhattan. We're not going to call it "Two Bridges, New York," or "Two Bridges, New York City" or anything like that. --DanTD (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- We were all awaiting. That’s the problem of using CfD for trivial matters such as these. Anyway, it’s done. Now an admin need to close this. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DanTD and Epicgenius: What do you oppose, then, exactly? Looks like everybody here agrees that this category is ambiguous and should be renamed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- @DanTD and Epicgenius: You two are still marked above as opposing, two votes against my support. A hurried admin might skip the discussion, and just tally the votes, undo the renaming/move, keep this discussion open, and maybe even admonish me for being bold, so if you could strike out your opposition, that would be sweet. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the current rename is much better, so I'm happy. ----DanTD (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- I find the current name of Category:Two Bridges, Manhattan to be satisfactory. I have therefore struck my oppose. epicgenius (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- I supposed I should strike opposition to the previous proposal, in spite of the current rename being more acceptable. ----DanTD (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- The category has been renamed properly, Can we close this now? ----DanTD (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale@DanTD@Epicgenius@Joshbaumgartner I thought that we have DAB like en:Two Bridges. And category:2 bridges is a subcategory of Category:Groups of bridges Estopedist1 (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: I've added a dab to Category:Two Bridges, or should it redirect to Category:Two bridges which then becomes the dab? Josh (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- very good job, @Joshbaumgartner! I added the hatnote to Category:2 bridges. I guess that after two weeks this CFD can be closed Estopedist1 (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: I've added a dab to Category:Two Bridges, or should it redirect to Category:Two bridges which then becomes the dab? Josh (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale@DanTD@Epicgenius@Joshbaumgartner I thought that we have DAB like en:Two Bridges. And category:2 bridges is a subcategory of Category:Groups of bridges Estopedist1 (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- The category has been renamed properly, Can we close this now? ----DanTD (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I supposed I should strike opposition to the previous proposal, in spite of the current rename being more acceptable. ----DanTD (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I find the current name of Category:Two Bridges, Manhattan to be satisfactory. I have therefore struck my oppose. epicgenius (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the current rename is much better, so I'm happy. ----DanTD (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@DanTD, Epicgenius, Tuvalkin, and Estopedist1: Closed (dab created, new category names per comments above) Josh (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm guessing this category refers to the company Goldsmiths, but that isn't especially clear from the title. It's visible from the contents that it's being confused with Category:Goldsmiths. Maybe we can rename to Category:Goldsmiths (retailer) like en:Goldsmiths (retailer)? Themightyquill (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Good idea. It would also need category adjustment. Can we turn Category:Goldsmiths into a dab page? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: What do we do with actual goldsmiths? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- That category would need to be qualified somehow, maybe Category:Goldsmiths (metalworkers). If we can't figure out a good qualifier, then maybe create Category:Goldsmiths (disambiguation), but that would be less helpful. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: What do we do with actual goldsmiths? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per WP and agree confusion is possible. Unsure about Category:Goldsmiths but indeed we could disambiguate that but we tend not to if there's only 1 generic term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Themightyquill‘s suggestion for category name change to: Category:Goldsmiths (retailer) which makes sense given the use of the brackets as is also used in the enwiki page. Rereader1996 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support for renaming to "Goldsmiths (retailer)" to match enwiki. But let's reserve Category:Goldsmiths to the generic term--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Goldsmiths (retailer). If that doesn't work, we can try renaming to Category:Goldsmiths (UK retailer). Category:Goldsmiths can be taken up in a different CFD if anyone feels the urge. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I think the above and other subcategories of Category:Dahlia cultivars by name by initial letter could easily be deleted and its contents merged into Category:Dahlia cultivars by name Reasons for discussion request --Jura1 (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose @Jura1: parent Category:Dahlia cultivars by name is well-developed. Better the structured category tree by initial letters, than one container category with about 600 members--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was not merge. Pinging user:Jura1 Estopedist1 (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Delete and upmerge; there's just one airport in Blenheim and this thus doesn't make sense Schwede66 01:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- There is one more aerodrome in Blenheim, a picture of which had not been categorized correctly so far: Omaka Aerodrome.
- However, the deletion request had not been unfounded before this one was discovered; just one entry in a category indeed does not make sense. --Uli Elch (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Is Omaka Aerdrome an airport by definition or just an airfield/airstrip? If it is not an airport, it does not belong to this category. ––Apalsola t • c 15:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- As an experienced user you quite certainly know that in both Commons and en:WP the term "Airport" is being abused in thousands of cases, like here Oostwold "Airport" for a 800 m grass runway without any regular commercial traffic or facilities, but resides in categories "Airports in the Netherlands" and "Airports by name".
- Every airport is an aerodrome, but not every aerodrome is an airport. This quite basic rule is mostly being ignored throughout the English language Wikipedias. Therefore, if you want to change it in this case, you may as well have to rename thousands of categories and files which deal with aerodromes without being airports "by defintion". --Uli Elch (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Uli Elch: We could fix that language fail, but really it should be discussed at the Category:Airports level, not just a deep sub-cat like this one. Renaming thousands of categories might be the result (that is what bots and such are for) but not sure file names would need to be changed (file name changes have a different threshold than category changes). I would support a nomination to name it correctly, even if it takes some work to implement. Josh (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Uli Elch: I've gone ahead and started the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Aerodromes for the issue of "Aerodrome", "Airfield", "Airport". I agree fully that the current names are being abused and the structure in place does not match reality at all. Your comments on the fix will be appreciated. Josh (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The nominated category is populated. Centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Aerodromes Estopedist1 (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Efficiency Decoration (United Kingdom) to disambiguate from all othe other efficiency decorations of other countries Themightyquill (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support although w:Efficiency Decoration is about the UK one the threshold is higher for PTs here, the others are at Category:Efficiency decorations. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- stale discussion. @Crouch, Swale@Themightyquill: I probably prematurely moved the nomination category. Because the nominated category consisted of non-UK files also, then I moved these into Category:Efficiency decorations; sorting of these files is not trivial. Maybe "Efficiency decorations" or "Efficiency Decoration" should be a DAB? Estopedist1 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it needs to be a DAB, it redirects to Category:Efficiency decorations which contains the likes of Category:Efficiency Decoration (United Kingdom), if later these categories are moved to a sub category a DAb should probably be created at the title case version. I think we can close this discussion now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- stale discussion. @Crouch, Swale@Themightyquill: I probably prematurely moved the nomination category. Because the nominated category consisted of non-UK files also, then I moved these into Category:Efficiency decorations; sorting of these files is not trivial. Maybe "Efficiency decorations" or "Efficiency Decoration" should be a DAB? Estopedist1 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Renamed per discussion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Efficiency Medal (United Kingdom) to avoid confusion with other efficiency decorations and medals. Themightyquill (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support although w:Efficiency Medal is about the UK one the threshold is higher for PTs here, the others are at Category:Efficiency decorations. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Moved per nomination. Category:Efficiency Medal now redirects to Category:Efficiency decorations. -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
"Aerodrome" is the correct name for all land and sea locations used for aircraft flying activities. Josh (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
A defined area on land or water (including any buildings, installations, and equipment) intended to be used either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure, and surface movement of aircraft.
— in: International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Documents, Annex 14 to The Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), Volume I- Aerodrome Design and Operations under Definitions
Unfortunately it is currently a redirect to Category:Airfields (simple aerodromes with limited services/facilities) which is the parent of Category:Airports (aerodromes with significant facilities and support for civil operations (especially commercial)), a wholly unsatisfactory arrangement. Instead these should be rearranged to match their actual definitions:
- Category:Aerodromes (aerodrome (Q62447): rename of Category:Airfields, which can then remain as a redirect to the parent level)
- Category:Aerodromes by location (should be parent level of 'by location' indices and sub cats, with similar structure as below for its subs)
- Category:Aerodromes in the United Kingdom (would be the new top level for all aerodromes in the UK)
- Category:Airports in the United Kingdom (should be limited to only those aerodromes that are really airports)
- Category:Aerodromes in the United Kingdom (would be the new top level for all aerodromes in the UK)
Category:Airfields (limit to only actual airfields, as in simple aerodromes with limited services and facilities)- Category:Airstrips (airstrip (Q3631092): simple aerodromes with limited services and facilities)
- Category:Airports (airport (Q1248784): for the bigger ones we all know and love; seriously, those with significant support services and facilities)
- Category:Military aerodromes (for military aviation facilities; rename of existing Category:Military airfields, parallel structure to parent "Aerodromes")
- Category:Airbases (air base (Q695850): aerodromes with significant military aviation facilities, or the portions of mixed-use facilities dedicated to military use)
- Category:Military airstrips (simple aerodromes with limited facilities, but specifically for military use) (cross cat under Category:Airstrips as well, a lot of current content will move to Airbases)
- Category:Aerodromes by location (should be parent level of 'by location' indices and sub cats, with similar structure as below for its subs)
Note I didn't fill in everything above, it is just a basic structure. Aerodromes which qualify as say both airports and airbases can be listed in both places. There are a lot of affected categories so will take some doing to pull off, but the current structure is a bit of an affront so keeping it is a bad idea. Note, I was reminded of this mess by Uli Elch (talk · contribs) in another discussion, which prompted me to raise the discussion. Perhaps they can shed further light on the issue. Josh (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'd say Keep the redirect as it is. There seems little practical point in creating an additional navigation layer called "Aerodromes" (or "Airbases"). The purpose of categories are to aid navigation, not conform to a civil aviation handbook. All online dictionaries (that I've looked at so far) define an aerodrome as an airfield. Sionk (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I guess the problem is that our own wikidata definition for airfield is "aerodrome with only basic infrastructure and limited or no services not intended for regular commercial use." If we're going to keep that definition, then airpots shouldn't be a subcategory. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- In any case we should observe the fact that "Aerodrome" is the parent category of all others, including military and even helipads. In this respect the category tree proposed by Josh is correct. The categories "Airfields" and "Military aerodromes" would need the same structure of sub-categories as the example in Category:Aerodromes. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sionk, Themightyquill, and Uli Elch: Sionk, is your sticking point the matter of whether "Aerodromes" or "Airfields" is a better name for the parent cat? I get your point about not adding needless extra layers of navigation, but you will find just as many layers and more in the current structure than there is in the proposal above. I've gone with "airstrips" for the sub-cat based on the WD/WP name and to avoid confusion with the existion use of "airfield" here. I have also noted the WD links for each category where known. Josh (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- As quoted in the correct definition at the beginning of that discussion, "Aerodromes" is the parent cat, encompassing all kinds of "movement places" for aircraft of any sort.
- "Airfield" is by far the most used expression for minor aerodromes with less facilities compared to airports (or none at all) and includes "Airstrips", which do not need their own category - they should be just a part of "Airfields".
- Anyhow, we are going to have very many cases where more or less lively discussions will start when it comes to categorizing certain aerodromes which may be considered as Airfields by some and as Airports by others (usually the operators!). If in doubt, we should check these cases against the definition in en:WP. --Uli Elch (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- En inglés no os puedo ayudar mucho, pero creo que sería bueno que también tengáis en cuenta las implicaciones que supone organizar las categorías de cara a otros idiomas, en este caso el español:
- - "Airfield" se traduciría literalmente como "campo de aire", pero tendría más sentido como "campo de aviación" y serviría para cualquier tipo de instalación aeroportuaria.
- - "Aerodrome" se traduce directamente como "aeródromo", y es según el Diccionario de la lengua española [1]: "Terreno llano provisto de pistas y demás instalaciones necesarias para el despegue y aterrizaje de aviones, generalmente de carácter militar y más reducido que el aeropuerto." Es decir, una instalación aeroportuaria pequeña, orientada sobre todo al uso militar, aunque no exclusivamente.
- - "Airport" se traduce directamente como "aeropuerto", según el mismo Diccionario[2]: "Área destinada al aterrizaje y despegue de aviones dotada de instalaciones para el control del tráfico aéreo y de servicios a los pasajeros." Es decir, lo que entendemos como una instalación aeroportuaria comercial, grande y con todos los servicios para los profesionales y pasajeros.
- - "Airbase" se traduce directamente como "base aérea", que según el mimo Diccionario[3] es un: "Aeropuerto militar donde las fuerzas aéreas, con el apoyo de instalaciones logísticas adecuadas, se preparan para el vuelo y el combate." Es decir, un aeropuerto militar exclusivamente.
- - "Helipad" se traduce directamente como "helipuerto", y según dicho Diccionario[4]: "Pista destinada al aterrizaje y despegue de helicópteros."
En conclusión: al menos en español, la categoría principal sería "Airfields" (campos de aviación) y el resto serían subcategorías. Un cordial saludo:Raimundo Pastor (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
References
[edit]- ↑ Aeródromo. Diccionario de la Lengua Española. RAE. Consultado el 30/01/2020.
- ↑ Aeropuerto. Diccionario de la Lengua Española. RAE. Consultado el 30/01/2020.
- ↑ Base aérea. Diccionario de la Lengua Española. RAE. Consultado el 30/01/2020.
- ↑ Helipuerto. Diccionario de la Lengua Española. RAE. Consultado el 30/01/2020.
Done: accepted. --MB-one (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Diese Kategorie ist komplett er Unsinn und hat keinen Nutzwert, ebenso sämtliche Unterkategorien Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment see previous discussion about groups, I've added the links above.
- Oppose While not all users find use in these categories, some do. Unless there is a particular harm done to Commons by these categories, no reason to delete them. Josh (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Estas categorias têm um potencial de uso tanto evidente como vasto. Este utilizador deveria ser repreendido por fazer perder tempo à comunidade com questões assim tão deslocadas, e a sua atividade deletéria afetando categorias desta família urgentemente desfeita e severamente punida. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The usefulness of these categories isn't obvious to me, but who knows, perhaps some people would look for a picture of 5 cats. I don't think that categorizing pictures of actual groups of animals by number causes any harm in general, and it will probably remain quite marginal anyway. However, there are some abuses that should absolutely be avoided:
- User:Joshbaumgartner has started putting pictures of Lepidoptera illustration plates in there (like the current contents of Category:13 insects): not only is this useless, but such a practice would also clutter these categories with thousands of off-topic files, and pollute these thousands of file pages with irrelevant categories (these files are already more appropriately categorized within Category:Lepidoptera illustrations).
- Restricting 'by quantity' categories to only contain certain types of images makes no sense. Category:5 cats can contain any file that depicts 5 cats, whether it is a photograph of 5 cats sitting on a couch, an animation of 5 cats playing soccer or an anatomical drawing of 5 cats. If there are enough files that one can't easily find what they are seeking then clearly, sub-categories can be created, should there be enough files to support them. Josh (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- "Oh, I really need a scan of a Lepidoptera illustration page with exactly 13 illustrations on it, no matter which species are depicted, so I really hope there is a Commons category for that." - said no one, ever. It's high time you let go of useless/polluting initiatives. Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it. --LamBoet (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, and «Here I am seriously wondering if you are a troll.» Or, even worse, if you’re serious and either cannot really see how this need is actual (think kindergarten teachers, for instance) because you just lack the imagination for it, or you just don’t think Commons should serve certain needs but only others. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the insult. I wouldn’t object if you proposed a reasonable usage example that was commensurate to the effort and noise. Kindergarten teachers? For pictures of 5 cats, sure (I was thinking of them when I wrote “perhaps some people”). For plates of N scientific illustrations of Lepidoptera, no, that doesn’t sound realistic. --LamBoet (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- @LamBoet: The kindergarten teacher is merely one possible use case that happened to come to mind amongst those of us involved in this discussion. Commons has thousands upon thousands of users, with an innumerable variation of use cases. As I believe Tuvalkin (talk · contribs) is indicating, we should not be limiting Commons only to the use cases of a narrow few users. Josh (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- @LamBoet: You’re very welcome, but I cannot take credit, as you were the one flinging it, I merely quoted your quip. As for the matter at hand, well, after you pontificate that kindergarten animal counting should not be done by means of 19th century scentific illustration of Lepidoptera but only by means of LOLcats, the whole discussion has derailed into the I-don’t-like-it quagmire. Good lord, there’s a lot of stuff I don’t like in Commons — the vanity authorship templates (and cats), Wiki-loves-you-momma campaigns, polandball, and the endless bickering at QI debates — yet I just ignore it and focus on creating stuff I appreciate and find useful and beautiful, I don’t go around trying to unmake the stuff I dislike (except for WD spam — that needs to go). Deletionists should try to be like this. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: I am not trying to decide if and how people should use stuff, I am trying to prevent heavy things that no one will use to spin out of control, and here, still, zero realistic use case has been mentioned. But if I am the only one "not liking" this, I will accept your last point and mind my own business. --LamBoet (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Category:1 animal and its subcategories are complete nonsense (a group of 1??), and their very concept makes them redundant with most of Commons's category structure, which is catastrophic. They can be shamelessly deleted. --LamBoet (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Despite your personal misgivings, groups of 1 are merely another quantity as equally valid as a group size as 2 or 3 or any other number. "A group is a number of people or things that are located, gathered, or classed together." () One is a number. Therefore it is a valid quantity. If we have images of 1 'X' then we support it with a category. Josh (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Here I am seriously wondering if you are a troll. You are still wrong about what a group is, but that's not even the main point. The overwhelming majority of Commons images are images of 1 'X'. No, you can't initiate a dupilcation of the whole Commons category tree just for your personal amusement. --LamBoet (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- @LamBoet: please, no offensive style against user:Joshbaumgartner. He is our hardcore here. The problem with "by quantity" stuff seems to be endless and there are many talk pages and CFDs about it. However, categorizing "by quantity" can be more systematic and logical. Eg, if there are "cat:10 insects" then we don't do "11 insects", "12 insects", "13 insects" etc but we do only "cat:Many insects". And we definitely have to interfere if there are coming eg "cat:3 dogs, 2 insects and 1 boy"--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: The concerns about endless categories for seemingly trivial things is a valid point to raise. I try and keep in mind that categories do not exist for their own sake, but as a function of their contents. Thus if the files exist that would populate a category, and there is objective criteria to define said category then it is warranted. If the files do not exist for it, then it should be removed. This in mind, there is no need to create an artificial and arbitrary limit on, for example, how many insects warrant an "X insects" category, but instead, so long as we have files with said number 'X' insects depicted, then the category should exist as a function to support the file. Josh (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: It's being pointed out that my style was offensive: I agree, it was uncalled for, please allow me to apologize for this. --LamBoet (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- @LamBoet: No offense taken, I appreciate your comment, thank you. Josh (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- This file desperately needs some counting a the right category Category:Many insects. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC) I expected a red link, but this cat really exists, friggin hell.
- @Joshbaumgartner: It's being pointed out that my style was offensive: I agree, it was uncalled for, please allow me to apologize for this. --LamBoet (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: The concerns about endless categories for seemingly trivial things is a valid point to raise. I try and keep in mind that categories do not exist for their own sake, but as a function of their contents. Thus if the files exist that would populate a category, and there is objective criteria to define said category then it is warranted. If the files do not exist for it, then it should be removed. This in mind, there is no need to create an artificial and arbitrary limit on, for example, how many insects warrant an "X insects" category, but instead, so long as we have files with said number 'X' insects depicted, then the category should exist as a function to support the file. Josh (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- @LamBoet: please, no offensive style against user:Joshbaumgartner. He is our hardcore here. The problem with "by quantity" stuff seems to be endless and there are many talk pages and CFDs about it. However, categorizing "by quantity" can be more systematic and logical. Eg, if there are "cat:10 insects" then we don't do "11 insects", "12 insects", "13 insects" etc but we do only "cat:Many insects". And we definitely have to interfere if there are coming eg "cat:3 dogs, 2 insects and 1 boy"--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Is there a way to make this work to train Computer-aided_tagging ? Not necessarily the one used here, but such features in general? Jura1 (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1: Right now I am not aware of a method to make this work as a mainstream solution yet, but I am eager to see further development because I do think structured data is going to make categorization a lot easier to maintain and make file categorization more comprehensive. It also is going to put a lot more pressure on us to regularize the structure of our categorization even more so that it can be utilized structured data. Josh (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not so much thinking about the use of categories or structured data, but merely of having a group of images that can be used to train AI for image recognition. Given the tags suggested by the google tool mentioned above, I don't think it's quite there yet. Jura1 (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1: That's a good thought, I agree it does not seem we are quite there, but I would love to see further development along those lines. Josh (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not so much thinking about the use of categories or structured data, but merely of having a group of images that can be used to train AI for image recognition. Given the tags suggested by the google tool mentioned above, I don't think it's quite there yet. Jura1 (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1: Right now I am not aware of a method to make this work as a mainstream solution yet, but I am eager to see further development because I do think structured data is going to make categorization a lot easier to maintain and make file categorization more comprehensive. It also is going to put a lot more pressure on us to regularize the structure of our categorization even more so that it can be utilized structured data. Josh (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep useful Triplec85 (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep as Triplec85, useful [[User:Geoprofi
Lars|Geoprofi Lars]]
Keep Not every category seems to make sense at first glance, but there are similar categories. I do not want to allow myself to pass judgment. In any case, it fits into the general scheme. --XRay 💬 15:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep --Laserlicht (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep anro (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
closed, no consensus to change or delete. Most users for keep. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 15:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Misleading (here is only categories not files) and seems to be subjective maintenance category. Actually, there can be more than million files :) Estopedist1 (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: This is part of what Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Maintenance categories was started to discuss. In this case, I agree, a simple "Category:Files that need more categories" is not really a good idea. There is no structure for what should or should not be contained. I don't mind if a maintenance category has a million files, if that is really how many need the specified task completed on them, but the reason for inclusion needs to be clear. Do you mind rolling this into the larger discussion on maintenance categories? Josh (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I hope you can do it. You are more familiar with Commons' maintenance categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: discussion in question (Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Maintenance categories) doesn't mention cat "Undercategorised files". By now cat "Undercategorised files" is empty and is not needed. To be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: I agree, 'Undercategorised' seems just another way to say 'needs categories'. Unless it is a specific type of indexing that is needed (i.e. needs categories by color) then there is no need to keep these. Josh (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: discussion in question (Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Maintenance categories) doesn't mention cat "Undercategorised files". By now cat "Undercategorised files" is empty and is not needed. To be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I hope you can do it. You are more familiar with Commons' maintenance categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Category is empty. I think we can close the nominated category and then we can close this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
the difference between category:Commons maintenance and category:Commons maintenance content is thin if at all. Based on enwiki maybe it is rational this solution:
- category:Commons maintenance --> to be reorganized to category:Commons administration
- category:Commons maintenance content --> to be renamed and integrated to category:Commons maintenance
- Oppose We can keep the name (to make clear that it is regarding the content of Commons).--W like wiki good to know 02:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Only thing: Where to put Category:Maintenance templates – under administration or content maintenance?
Another problem is that some of these categories are not hidden. They and their children should all be hidden as maintenance categories. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Discussion open for 3 years, no consensus. --Yann (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Should be joined with Category:Physical properties. While both have descriptions, their difference isn't clear. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Some things in this category are not physical properties. For example, time isn't physical. I think both categories can stay, and some things would be in both. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- One of my motivations for this Cfd was that Category:Time (it shouldn't be there, according to your opion) and Category:Spacetime is below Category:Concepts in physics, while Category:Size (i.e. measure of space) is below Category:Physical properties. Can you explain the distinction between "concept" and "property"? Which category do you thing should be below both? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
stale discussion. I guess that en:Category:concepts in physics vs en:physical property (subcategory of en:Category:Physical quantities) may help--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Closed, both kept per comments by Auntof6 and Estopedist1, no consensus to change anything. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
| Category:Gray | Move to/Rename as | Category:Grey | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "Per the title of the Wikipedia article (en:Grey) and [what?] text at the top of [which?] page." | |||
| Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs), per original move request, 09:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
- Think. Don't assume that this move is a given. The Wikipedia article is not that decisive about "grey" (British English) over "gray" (American English). Someone slantily global-replaced "gray" with "grey" there, even from cited sources that actually use "gray".
- I added {Wiktionary|gray} and {Wiktionary|grey} on the category page to encourage thought. - from edit comment by A876 (talk · contribs) 21:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Details were missing, so I edited the request. (What text, at the top of which page?) - from edit comment by A876 (talk · contribs) 21:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- I moved the discussion here. Josh (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- It looks as though it has been at Category:Gray since 2005. I don't see the point in moving. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I had some connection issues half-way through creating this CfD (winter weather here) and ended up unable to complete the process until now, so apologies for not making it clear exactly what was going on. @A876: Thanks for providing the extra comments in my stead and fixing the attributions. I do not think in general it is a good idea to rename a category solely on the basis of GB v. US English spelling unless the topic is exclusive to one region or the other. Colors most certainly are not regional, so I see no reason to rename this category. Josh (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- The question is how w:MOS:RETAIN works here? In favour of moving this it matches the WP article which is presumably there per RETAIN. Against it is that we are a separate project and not directly linked to WP meaning RETAIN might favour keeping it at the US spelling since it has always been here. I don't think Commons has a local RETAIN guideline? Note that I originally proposed that the orange category be disambiguated with "color" rather than "colour" but then noticed the WP article and changed the proposal. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I had some connection issues half-way through creating this CfD (winter weather here) and ended up unable to complete the process until now, so apologies for not making it clear exactly what was going on. @A876: Thanks for providing the extra comments in my stead and fixing the attributions. I do not think in general it is a good idea to rename a category solely on the basis of GB v. US English spelling unless the topic is exclusive to one region or the other. Colors most certainly are not regional, so I see no reason to rename this category. Josh (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. If one English-speaking region spells it only one way and the other region spells it both ways, we should go with the spelling which is acceptable in both regions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I was going to withdraw this since it seems that RATAIN would apply here even if the WP article was at the other version, see w:Talk:Shades of gray#Requested move 16 October 2015 and w:Talk:Motorcycle tyre#Requested move 16 March 2015 but if Grey is acceptable in both versions per above then maybe this can be moved per w:MOS:COMMONALITY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. British spelling and American spelling categories should exist as created. It wouldn't be fair to force all categories into one or the other.--Sanya3 (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep enwiki article is under "grey". Solution per enwiki. We can close this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Did you mean to support the proposal? Currently, enwiki is at "grey" and this category is at "gray", so keeping everything as is would not be "per enwiki". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts sorry, my bad. Then massive renaming to be done to match enwiki "grey". I am also pinging @Themightyquill@Sanya3@Joshbaumgartner@Crouch, Swale. But before massive renaming, we should be sure that "grey" shouldn't be reserved to the disambiguation page in Commons Estopedist1 (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Did you mean to support the proposal? Currently, enwiki is at "grey" and this category is at "gray", so keeping everything as is would not be "per enwiki". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as Category:Gray. It is easy to get them switched, but it has been 'gray' and it was proposed to move it to 'grey'. Enwiki is not our guide, it is up to that community to name their articles and categories appropriate to their own conventions. Commons supports all language wikis and more, so while we do favor English-language category names, enwiki does not decide our conventions for such names. In cases where English spellings differ, and the topic is not regional (such as this one),
American English is preferred (e.g. Category:Colors, not Category:Colours).(previous comment struck as it was based on the inactive Commons:Naming categories which is not current policy). I do agree that sub-categories should be standardized to match the parent. Josh (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)- American English isn't preferred if as far as I'm aware as with Wikipedia. As I said I would have withdrawn this but it seems both spellings are acceptable in American English which is why I didn't. If 1 version is only acceptable in 1 variant of English and the other is acceptable in both we generally prefer the version that is acceptable in both even if its less common than the other. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- I personally spell it "grey" but as I said above, if it has been at "gray" since 2005, I don't see the point in moving it. I believe Wikipedia simply uses the rule that whoever starts the article gets to choose the regional spelling - it's not as if they have any strong logical argument for grey over gray. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- I prefer "Grey" (I learned British English at school). But most important to me is that there will be a decision, because now it is a mess, see subcategories of this category and of Category:Gray impressions, where there are even double categories for the same concept (see for instance Category:Grey impressions in Germany). So the question is indeed: Would "Grey" be acceptable for US English speakers or would "Gray" be acceptable for UK English speakers? --JopkeB (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: I'm sorry, but I do not think the question is one of what is acceptable (we should not empower the heckler's veto), but rather what communicates clearly and concisely. Both gray and grey are readily recognizable to all English speakers and while partisan backers of one spelling or the other will no doubt rebel at having it written the opposite way, I don't think that is a valid reason to constantly argue whether it should be changed back and forth. If the issue were truck vs. lorry, a case could be made that many people could read lorry and have no idea what you are talking about, but read truck and know exactly what the topic is (or vice-versa). I don't think the same can be said for gray versus grey, so therefore there is no pressing need to adopt one or the other. Since it has basically been Category:Gray for over a decade, just leave it be. Renaming a file/article/category that covers a general topic (not regionally specific to US or UK) from American to British English or vice-versa should not be done merely for its own sake. Arguments over which one is 51%-49% more common/used/popular/etc. can be interminable and thus renaming back and forth would become a never-ending waste of time and resources. That said, there IS a pressing need to harmonize naming per the Universality Principle and so the children of the parent category should be named the same as the parent category. Thus, regardless of whether the parent category is gray or grey, the subcategories should match its spelling. Josh (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Josh, for your extensive response. You probably are right.
- Agree with: (1) Keep Category:Gray. (2) Harmonize the names of the children and grandchildren (and so on) of this category, but only the categories, not the files and articles.
- How can we go on? Can the two of us decide that this is the outcome of this discussion and implement these conclusions? --JopkeB (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: It seems pretty clear to me there is no consensus on making a name change to the parent category. I haven't seen any objection to applying the Universality Principle to the sub-cats as that is an established policy, but that wasn't the main thrust of this discussion. I suppose we should let it stay open for another couple weeks (per normal closing policy) in case anyone has input regarding the latest comments, but if there is nothing more by that point, I would be happy to close it with a conclusion of no consensus to rename, and standard policy can be implemented on the sub-cats. If there is any concern about the second part, I'd still close this one as for the parent category name, but open a new CfD for harmonizing the subs. Hopefully, however, that won't be necessary. Josh (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Seems a good plan to me. So if there is no objection about renaming the subcategories, consequently all subcategories would get "Gray" in the name (because the main category will stay "Gray"), is that right? JopkeB (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: It seems pretty clear to me there is no consensus on making a name change to the parent category. I haven't seen any objection to applying the Universality Principle to the sub-cats as that is an established policy, but that wasn't the main thrust of this discussion. I suppose we should let it stay open for another couple weeks (per normal closing policy) in case anyone has input regarding the latest comments, but if there is nothing more by that point, I would be happy to close it with a conclusion of no consensus to rename, and standard policy can be implemented on the sub-cats. If there is any concern about the second part, I'd still close this one as for the parent category name, but open a new CfD for harmonizing the subs. Hopefully, however, that won't be necessary. Josh (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner, Crouch, Swale, A876, Themightyquill, King of Hearts, Sanya3, and Estopedist1: Can we conclude that:
- The name of this category stays "Gray" and this discussion can be closed?
- We can rename subcategories to "Gray" if they have now "Grey" in the name?
- Then we can go on and clear up the mess of the subcategories. JopkeB (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Fully agreed. Good to put this one to bed. Josh (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner, Crouch, Swale, A876, Themightyquill, King of Hearts, Sanya3, and Estopedist1: Can we conclude that:
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Keep Category:Gray + Rename subcategories to "Gray" if they have now "Grey" in the name | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
Feedback/state of affairs about the renaming
[edit]@Crouch, Swale, A876, Themightyquill, King of Hearts, Sanya3, Estopedist1, and Joshbaumgartner: I did a lot of the renaming, but I skipped:
- categories with "Grey" as a proper name: they should not be renamed
- subcategorieën of Category:Gray vehicles by brand - far too many to do by one person; I hope others will pick this up
- many categories with "grey" in the category name but without a parent with "grey" in the category name (I worked top down through the category tree, so I did not see them; after a search I changed already a lot, but not all, too many); this involves (among many others) categories about Trains and buses in the United Kingdom by livery
- Category:BSicon/railway/set grey + subcategories, for technical reasons, see Category talk:BSicon/railway/set grey.
Problems with templates:
- Most of the subcategories of Category:By color navigational templates should still be adjusted, some I could do myself, but I have not enough knowledge of templates to do them all. The problem is, that now "Gray" and "Grey" both are in the navigation line, though "Grey" links to the redirect, what I think is not desirable, I think only "Gray" should be shown. See for instance Category:Wallpapers by color.
- Antarctica dissappeared from the template {{Continents|prefix=:Category:SVG locator maps of countries of|suffix=(gray globe scheme)}} and related templates after I changed "grey" to "gray", see for instance Category:SVG locator maps of countries of South America (gray globe scheme).
Could someone look into these issues? --JopkeB (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Excellent work. I agree that there are a ton in the vehicle categories that will just have to filter down as it is a bit much for one user to do. I agree with your exemptions, some of them may be right to change but can be done in time. I can certainly look into the templates and do what I can there. I do know that while the matter was unresolved, the templates were designed to support multiple options for the same color. I know we had this in some country lists (Ireland/Republic of Ireland, for example) but this was likewise deemed undesireable for the same reasons you bring up. It will be a few days however before I have the time to really sit down and do that part. Josh (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Josh, for your reaction and the compliment. I am glad you will look into this, take your time. JopkeB (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Apparently this category is for "raster graphics editors" (confusing enough since Category:Raster graphics editors is actually for users) but its subcategory is Category:Vector graphic editing programs. I would suggest a new subcategory Category:Raster image processing software or Category:Raster graphics processing software or something similar? Themightyquill (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Why not "raster graphic editing programs", similarly to the existing vector one? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4: That's more readable, I agree, but it's in the Category:Image processing software tree, not the Category:Programs tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: So you rather suggest the vector category be renamed to something similar to your suggestion for the raster one? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4: That's more readable, I agree, but it's in the Category:Image processing software tree, not the Category:Programs tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- I guess that would make sense. I'll tag Category:Vector graphic editing programs in case anyone wants to comment on that. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- WARNING: 2 years later Category:Raster graphics editors moved to Category:Bitmap graphics editors (editor = user = wikimedian) and there is Category:Graphical software too. Taylor 49 (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- It seems that Category:Programs has been changed to something besides media related to software in the meantime. Also, Category:Graphical software is a nonsensical non-sequitur, which is why it seems to be being (be being? lol) used as a dump for everything from selfies to images of Fantasy maps. So I don't think it's a viable alternative to this category. Really it should just be deleted. Although I'm not sure what would be a good alternative, but it should at least be more specific then "graphical" and end in "software." I don't see why up merging it to Category:Image processing software wouldn't work, but then I haven't really put that much thought into it either. Maybe something like Category:Raster image processing software or Category:Raster graphics processing software would be adequate, but then I don't think the distinction between a raster or vector image is one without a purpose, at least at this and point on our end. Let alone does "processing" versus "editing", or really "graphics" versus "images." If I'm being frank, categorizing something by if it's an image or graphics program is actually rather pedantic. Same goes if an image (graphic? Argh!) is being edited or processed. Just pick one (if I were to guess "editing" is probably the more colloquially of the two) and use it constantly. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- principle: rename cats to ".. software" for software, "commons users who edit .." for commons users (similar to Category:Commons users by use of technology).
- proposed structure:
- Category:Bitmap graphics editors, move to "commons users who edit raster graphics"
- @Themightyquill, 1234qwer1234qwer4, Taylor 49, and Adamant1: here's my proposal. RZuo (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support I'm a little hazy on the details of this since it's been so long, but your proposal sounds like an improvement. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Seems sensible enough, though I suppose Category:Vector graphic editing programs would need to be moved to Category:Vector graphic software too then? That does seem broader, so maybe both the raster and vector categories should keep the "processing" part? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- i think it might only introduce more problems if we try to categorise them as "processing" or "editing" etc. using a broad term can include all kinds of software: readers/viewers, cataloguing/database management, editing...
- "processing" is rather vague. importing photos from cameras should be considered processing? editing photos with photoshop/lightroom is also processing? RZuo (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with that, but "processing" is used on a lot of other, higher level categories that have the same issue already. For instance Category:Image processing. So it's really discussion for another venue. It would be weird to have a category for "image processing" (whatever that means) without having one for "image processing software" in the meantime though. That said, I'd probably be in favor of getting rid of the whole "processing" category structure in general if you were to propose it. I just think this is the correct place to draw in the sand about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support <<rename cats to ".. software" for software, "commons users who edit .." for commons users>>
- Support verb "editing" rather than "processing" (the latter can be import or converison of file type)
- "raster AKA bitmap" and "vector" must be besides each other, not parent and subcategory. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- WARNING: Currently Category:Bitmap graphics editors is for users here but connected to WikiData item for software. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
new category scheme is as follows:
for users: Category:Commons users who edit raster graphics. other cats are redirected accordingly.--RZuo (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
do we actually need this category? It is poorly developed so it is easy to think about other solution (eg upmerging and deleting) Estopedist1 (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- It is poorly maintained indeed. But instead of putting away with it, I propose to put it at work instead. --MB-one (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @MB-one, Auntof6, and Themightyquill: wow, are you sure? By default, almost all our categories consist of images. If you take eg category:Animals you will get some thousand input for "Images by subject". Luckily the category:Images by year is empty--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- My thoughts:
- The category's hatnote says "To find images by topic or subject, see Category:Topics and Category:Categories." That implies that Category:Images by subject isn't needed.
- The overwhelming majority of files here are images. If we try to include every "images of" category here, we'll end up nearly duplicating the entire category tree. That would be a bad thing.
- Delete For these reasons, I support eliminating this category. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, almost all files here are images, but then not all of them. To stay consistent then, we should categorize images in the same manner, we categorize videos, documents etc. --MB-one (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete That's an enormous amount of work with virtually no reward. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- That would, indeed, be consistent, but it's unnecessary. Not every topic even has an images category, so besides gathering all the ones we have, we'd have to create a large number of new ones. Better to categorize by exception when there are way more images than other media types. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete empty. Can be deleted and CFD can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- it is not empty anymore. There is Category:Images by subject by source. To restrict it with images is probably bad. If kept, should be category:Files by subject by source--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Like Auntof6 said: "we'll end up nearly duplicating the entire category tree", "Better to categorize by exception" Regards --W like wiki good to know 20:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion is delete this and most subcats with "images of". However, since I'm not an admin, I will redirect the categories using {{Catredir}} instead of deleting them. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Up until 10 or 15 years ago this was Toronto's only downtown bus terminal. But then GO Transit built a pretty busy terminal adjacent to Union Station. We don't have to be bound by official names, when those aren't as useful as a meaningful name, or common name. I question whether this is the best name for this terminal. I suggest Category:Toronto's Bay Street bus terminal instead. Geo Swan (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Or Category:Bay Street bus terminal, Toronto? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think Toronto Coach Terminal is fine, the other is called the Union Station Bus Terminal Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- There's a "Category:Union Station Bus Concourse" in Denver, Colorado here in the USA. ----DanTD (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think Toronto Coach Terminal is fine, the other is called the Union Station Bus Terminal Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Not done: No need for renaming, as this is the name the coach terminal is known under, see the en.WP article. --Kritzolina (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Maintenance categories
[edit]Maintenance categories are widely misunderstood by many users and hence misused by well-meaning editors trying to make heads or tails of the situation. This misuse can end up impacting normal topical categories, leading to calls to eliminate useful maintenance categories. Several problems exist:
- Files and other pages are moved from topical categories into maintenance categories. This is often in an attempt to clean up the topical category, but ends up in having files hidden in a maintenance closet and ultimately not being available to most users seeking files.
- Files are removed from maintenance categories while still incomplete. For example, an uncategorized file is added to a category and so is removed from the uncategorized category, but it still requires other categories to be added, yet it is no longer found in any maintenance categories.
- Maintenance categories do not always line up with topical categories. Many users operate within certain topics and so larger maintenance bins deter them from working on the backlog. When combined with #1 above, this makes it less likely a file will be properly categorized in a timely manner, thus making it less useful for longer.
- Maintenance categories can become too niche. Sometimes in the interest of honing down maintenance category populations, excessively specific categories are made. This is sometimes the counter-problem to #3 above, but it likewise confuses and dissuades many users from applying their efforts to completing maintenance tasks on the content.
- Maintenance category structure is often unclear and inconsistent. This makes it difficult to work across several maintenance categories and different maintenance projects often evolve their own, incompatible schema for categories.
- When a file or category should or should not be added to a maintenance category is not clear. This leads to disputes over placement in maintenance categories and exacerbates problems #1 and 2 above.
- Temporary and permanent maintenance categories are not always clear. This leads to confusion on how to handle empty categories and determine what categories are appropriate for the schema.
Framework for maintenance category categorization:
- Category:Category maintenance (current)
- Category:File maintenance (new, using word 'file' to match namespace it covers)
- Category:Files needing categories (Category:Media needing categories)
- Category:Files needing indexing (Category:To be categorized (currently Category:To be categorised)) - For files in a topic where an index or metacat scheme exists that the file has yet to be properly sorted by. For example, an object which has not yet been sorted under Category:Objects by color should be in Category:Objects (keep it in its topical category!) and Category:Files needing indexing by color.
- Category:Uncategorized files - For files with no topical category assigned. Also place them in Category:Files needing categories. This is not a sub of Category:Files needing categories, as adding a topical category would remove a file fom Category:Uncategorized files but not necessarily from Category:Files needing categories.
- Category:Files needing categories (Category:Media needing categories)
Rules for use of maintenance categories:
- Maintenance categories should have a standard tag that describes their purpose, whether they are permanent or temporary, and whether they are populated by humans, templates, and/or bots.
- Maintenance categories should each have a clearly stated inclusion policy on when and for what reason files and topical categories should be added or removed.
- Maintenance categories should use 'hiddencat', as there is no need to display them to users only seeking to browse topical categories.
- Maintenance categories should are an exception to COM:OVERCAT rules, as the expectation is that placement in a maintenance category is transitional by nature.
- Maintenance categories can be very large. They are not intended as browsing categories for normal use as topical categories, and thus the normal standards for when to sub-categorize are not applied the same.
- Temporary maintenance categories can be speedy deleted upon becoming empty, whereas permanent maintenance categories should remain even if empty. Temporary or permanent status should be declared at the top of the page.
- Non-maintenance pages placed in maintence categories ('topic pages') should never be moved out of their existing normal topical category. Add pages to maintenance categories in addition to existing topical categorization.
- Topic pages should be added to all relevant maintenance categories. This way when a particular piece of maintenance is done, it can be removed from that category while easily remaining in categories for other required maintenance tasks.
The above is not a concrete proposal, but instead a very rough outline of some areas to improve maintenance category structure so that such categories are useful and manageable while not adversly impacting topical categorization. I am not seeking a normal support/oppose kind of CfD here, but instead, it is hopefully a starting place for a discussion and can be built into a structure that can be implemented. I will attempt to update it with input from participants as it comes. Also, you may note that the focus in on maintenance to add needed categorization to files, as that is where I have witnessed the above issues most acutely. I have not addressed things like deletion requests and the like because those are often bot-maintained and are isolated systems in some cases. I have no problem adding other types of maintenance category to the discussion if it makes sense to other users. Josh (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment huge work by User:Joshbaumgartner. I like this phrase "new, using word 'file' to match namespace it covers)" as new approach. In addition, this section ("*** Category:Uncategorized files ...") is maybe redundant. Let just be category:All media needing categories as of 2015, 2016, 2017 etc (word "media" should be the word "files", but renaming is not rational because there are 100 000+ files).--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: I am fine with keeping the word 'media' instead of 'files' if that is a sticking point for some, but I do not think it is a big of a problem to change as it may first appear. Note that a lot of the assignment to these categories is done by template, so a simple tweak to the template and over a short period of time, the categorization will sort out to the new name. There are also other tools to help with this kind of move to automate things. Josh (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment this one is harmonized and in system: Category:Media needing categories. Hence the phrase "To be categorized" will be superseded by the phrase "Media needing categories". In the future, the word "media" will be replaced by the word "files"--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Please do not move or redirect categories under discussion (like Category:To be categorised by country). - Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1 and Themightyquill: Agreed, this is a sizeable topic and we need to give more chance for others to contribute to the discussion and for ideas to be heard out. Minimum time is 2 weeks for a CfD but for a topic such as this one, much more time is warranted to allow comment and reach consensus. Josh (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Please do not move or redirect categories under discussion (like Category:To be categorised by country). - Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am not sure whether a bunch of uncategorised xx of <place> were deleted because of this discussion. I am in favour of deleting such cats, but @Estopedist1: you should move the files to unidentifiled locations in <place> instead of straight up to <place> as you did for for example Singapore. This flooded the main cat. Please dont flood the main cat in future. These files had probably been moved to uncategorised xx of <place> from the main cats and you just put them back.--Roy17 (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Roy17: uncategorized xx of <place> (eg Uncategorized files of Canada) has no sense and practically it is same as upper category (eg Canada). You are free to move approriate files to Unidentified locations in <place>, but note that it cannot be done automatically because some files in question don't depict the place (id est: are just related somehow to the country, like food, people, symbols). Luckily or unfortunately we have to concede that many country categories (like Canada, Germany) are permanently cluttered up, unless some fan(s) keep the home clean :)--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- I dont see a pressing need to introduce more layers/subcats of the current maintenance cats or renaming them as per the proposed "Framework for maintenance category categorization".
- You still have the same amount of things not properly categorised. You still have this shortage of volunteer manhours. Introducing more layers, and hence letting volunteers shift stuff from one maintenance cat to another, will be an illusion of getting something done, but in reality it's just shifting things around and then feeling good about it. Roy17 (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I understand the whole 'let's get to work and stop rearranging the deck chairs' sentiment, but when faced with a monumental collection of various tasks to be completed, a good system for collating those tasks is one of the best ways to improve the efficiency of the work, so while I don't think the maintenance categories should be overly layered or byzantine, I do think they should be consistent and logical allowing users to quickly assess and identify areas where they can put their efforts to best effect. Josh (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Another problem is that some of these categories are not hidden. They and their children should all be hidden as maintenance categories. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Closed: Stale discussion. There are some items here which gained agreement, but nothing settled regarding an overall standard structure for the discussed categories. Josh (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
What's the difference between Category:Border markers and Category:Boundary markers? Themightyquill (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Border markers mark borders, boundary markers mark boundaries. Not all "boundaries" are at the scale of international borders. There are counties, towns, customs levy areas, large estates, hunting lands, railway lands, dockyards, military camps and ranges, all of which have "boundaries" which are marked in this way. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not all Category:Borders are Category:International borders. At its basic definition, I don't think there's any difference between "boundaries" and "borders" which explains the dab page at Category:Boundaries.- Themightyquill (talk)
- @Andy Dingley @Themightyquill I believe this needs to be fixed, indeed, with country border markers moved to International border markers or something like that. Darwin Ahoy! 14:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: Agreed. I think Category:International border markers as a subcategory of both Category:International borders and either Category:Border markers or Category:Boundary markers makes sense. But the last two should be merged. The wikipedia article is at en:Boundary marker but lists Border marker as alternative name. Category:Boundaries is a disambig page. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill I very much agree with what you propose here. Can you please implement it and close the discussion? Or I can do it, if you want. Darwin Ahoy! 14:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: Agreed. I think Category:International border markers as a subcategory of both Category:International borders and either Category:Border markers or Category:Boundary markers makes sense. But the last two should be merged. The wikipedia article is at en:Boundary marker but lists Border marker as alternative name. Category:Boundaries is a disambig page. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley @Themightyquill I believe this needs to be fixed, indeed, with country border markers moved to International border markers or something like that. Darwin Ahoy! 14:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Merging to "Border markers" -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Most categories called "Men/Women of <country> by name" are meant to contain only subcategories. The "by name" part of the category name means "grouped by name" (as is done in Category:People by name, Category:Men by name, Category:Women by name, and many others). When I noticed that Category:Men of East Timor by name and Category:Women of East Timor by name contained files and did not have the {{Catcat}} template on them, I moved the files to a parent category and added the catcat template. However, User:J. Patrick Fischer reverted those changes, saying that it isn't practical to treat these categories that way. See User talk:J. Patrick Fischer#Men/Women of East Timor by name for the discussion we had. Since we are unable to agree on this, I am bringing it here for discussion. Auntof6 (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- If you are looking for photos of persons by name, nationality and gender, this categories are the place to find them. Single photos of persons do not have generally categories. It is unusual to create categories for single photos, which is causing further edits in corresponding pages, like Wikipedia. So it is logical to make them findable to add them in these categories, when the file name makes it possible to relate them to persons. That was the reason, why there was no {{Catcat}} there and files were added in the categories. There is no win to keep files out there. --JPF (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- @J. Patrick Fischer and Auntof6: Speedy solution stated by user:Auntof6. "By name", "by country", "by date" etc categories are not for single files--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Bureaucratism or practicable solutions? I am working daily with East Timor articles. I have to work with the files and need to find easily single photos of named people. I do not see a solution. --JPF (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @J. Patrick Fischer and Auntof6: Speedy solution stated by user:Auntof6. "By name", "by country", "by date" etc categories are not for single files--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @J. Patrick Fischer: correct is to use Category:Men of East Timor. But if these 46 photos in Category:Men of East Timor by name is especially important for you (at the moment) then you can create your own category:user categories to copy and to maintain them--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Category:Men of East Timor includes photos of men, whose names arer unknown. I do not see creating phantasy categories as solution. It is not only for me, for other users, who are searching photos, too. Please, tell me an advantage taking this photos out of the category. --08:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @J. Patrick Fischer: heureka! Just use category:Unidentified people of East Timor and others can be in Category:Men of East Timor--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: What is the solution? It collects unnamed persons, but not identified men, like the category, we are talking about. --JPF (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- @J. Patrick Fischer: solution as follows:
- files from category:Men of East Timor --> category:Unidentified people of East Timor
- files from category:Men of East Timor by name --> category:Men of East Timor
- Also notice that category:Women of East Timor by name is empty category--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Because there were only a few photos. They have now one photo categories. But it is a lot to do for men. If you want, you can make this this as solution. --17:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Only 'copy' files from category:Men of East Timor --> category:Unidentified people of East Timor, as that is a maintenance category and files should not be removed from topical categories to be placed in maintenance categories, but instead should be linked to the maintenance category only so long as the maintenance is required. Category:Men of East Timor by name should only contain categories with individual names of East Timor men. Pictures of individuals with a known name but no category of their own should simply be under Category:Men of East Timor. Josh (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @J. Patrick Fischer: You appear to be asking for a category in which you can find images of named individuals which do not have their own category, but which does not include unidentified men. I would ask why this is important. If such an indentified individual has the sort key correctly assigned, it does not matter if other images in the category are identified or not, as the desired image will be found exactly where expected, thus satisfying the purpose of the system in the first place. Josh (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- If "it does not matter if other images in the category are identified or not", why does a special category Category:Men of East Timor by name exists? Identified men with categories could still be found seperated from the other men, which has no categories. There is a mix in the single images, which is making it more difficult to find at once, f the person on the photo has been identified or not.On the other hand: Still I can not see an advantage, by keeping single images away from this category. There is no logical reason for. --JPF (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- The reason is that categories with names like this one are for categories only. The "by nane" is a short way of saying "grouped by name", and the grouping is done by category. I understand that you have been using this category a different way and that you would lose that ability, but what you have been doing is nonstandard. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- "The reason is that categories with names like this one are for categories only." This is not a reason, this is a rule, could be made or changed. There is a reason to make it, like it is in the moment. No reason to follow this imaginary rule. This standardization is ineffective and useless. --JPF (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- @J. Patrick Fischer and Auntof6: Yes, it is a rule, or at least a standard, and no, it is not only imaginary. You are right that it could be changed, but until it is changed, it should be followed. We should upmerge files to Category:Men of East Timor, Category:Men of East Timor by name should only contain categories. Josh (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Contra: You are only talking about imaginary standards, but not about advantages. Commons should be useful, not a example for bureaucratism. Question to @Auntof6: Did you ever worked with the Category:Men of East Timor by name or with files of it? Why do you try to change a long time status quo, when you are not even care about the content? For what reason? --JPF (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support to user:Joshbaumgartner. @J. Patrick Fischer: "by name", "by country" etc are meta-categories, see Commons:Naming_categories#Categories_by_CRITERION--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Although this particular one is not a metacategory. Some by-name ones are, some aren't, but none should contain files. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Still no practical reason mention. --JPF (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Although this particular one is not a metacategory. Some by-name ones are, some aren't, but none should contain files. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Contra: You are only talking about imaginary standards, but not about advantages. Commons should be useful, not a example for bureaucratism. Question to @Auntof6: Did you ever worked with the Category:Men of East Timor by name or with files of it? Why do you try to change a long time status quo, when you are not even care about the content? For what reason? --JPF (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- @J. Patrick Fischer and Auntof6: Yes, it is a rule, or at least a standard, and no, it is not only imaginary. You are right that it could be changed, but until it is changed, it should be followed. We should upmerge files to Category:Men of East Timor, Category:Men of East Timor by name should only contain categories. Josh (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- "The reason is that categories with names like this one are for categories only." This is not a reason, this is a rule, could be made or changed. There is a reason to make it, like it is in the moment. No reason to follow this imaginary rule. This standardization is ineffective and useless. --JPF (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- The reason is that categories with names like this one are for categories only. The "by nane" is a short way of saying "grouped by name", and the grouping is done by category. I understand that you have been using this category a different way and that you would lose that ability, but what you have been doing is nonstandard. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- If "it does not matter if other images in the category are identified or not", why does a special category Category:Men of East Timor by name exists? Identified men with categories could still be found seperated from the other men, which has no categories. There is a mix in the single images, which is making it more difficult to find at once, f the person on the photo has been identified or not.On the other hand: Still I can not see an advantage, by keeping single images away from this category. There is no logical reason for. --JPF (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Because there were only a few photos. They have now one photo categories. But it is a lot to do for men. If you want, you can make this this as solution. --17:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @J. Patrick Fischer and Auntof6: Though I am a nobody, I agree in general with JPF's comment: "This is not a reason, this is a rule, could be made or changed. ... No reason to follow this imaginary rule. This standardization is ineffective and useless." For example, I have experienced working in a specific country for years only to have an admin suddenly turn up and do a major reorganization with a few strokes so that it is no longer possible to find anything. For example, if all the categories for "lakes" in a country are suddenly put under their "administrative unit", when faced with a new unidentified lake photo, one must look under all the lake categories individually under each administrative unit to try to find a lake that matches the new unidentified photo. At the time I was told that making a general category for all lakes of that country to ease this problem was considered "OVERCAT".An admin who uploads his own photos said that that he does not understand the category system enough to attempt to categorize his own photos. (Someone complained at the featured picture place that up loaders there do not categorize their own photos - maybe that is why.) Just my two cents - probably not helpful at all. I just want to express myself somewhere about this. I love photos and looking at them, but I am so tired of hunting, hunting, hunting. Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This is still an open discussion but given that Template:Men by name by country which is the standardized format for the Men of country by name categories has catcat has part of the template, I think we can close this discussion as settled. This is for categories that are for men of East Timor, organized by the name of that category. Category:Men of East Timor contains men of East Timor for which no category exists. I do not see the need for an "unidentified men" category. If someone wants files included in the Men by name by country structure, I suggest a larger discussion about reorganizing every category that uses that template (and the corresponding women's template). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- The men are identified with their name in the file name. JPF (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Which is not the purpose of this kind of category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- So what is the purpose in your opinion? JPF (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Which is not the purpose of this kind of category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- The men are identified with their name in the file name. JPF (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- tldr. what's the current contention? what are the two sides' opinions?
- it's standard to let "... by ..." cats only contain cats.
- it's preferable to create cats for identifiable persons as long as they have wikidata entries, even if there's only 1 file about them at the moment. RZuo (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Closed, category usage is now as a metacat for personal name categories, like similar cats for other countries. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
| Category:Bulletin of Leland College (Baker, La.) 1897 | Move to/Rename as | Category:Bulletin of Leland College, New Orleans, 1897 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "In 1897 Leland was in New Orleans, not Baker" | |||
| Infrogmation (talk · contribs) per move request | |||
- @Infrogmation: Sounds like the right thing to change the city, but the name is Leland University, per Category:Leland University, New Orleans, and even on images in the 1897 category (here). I would recommend a name more along the line of Category:Bulletin of Leland University, New Orleans (1897). The year may not be needed as there are no other bulletins listed, but presumably there may be in the future so I am fine with it included. Josh (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree, per the publication it is "University" rather than "College". As no objections or counter proposals, I shall do so. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Closed, moved. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Do we need to disambiguate this to Category:Kites (aircraft)? Category:Kites in art, at least, contains several images of birds (see Category:Kite (bird)). Unfortunately, "Kites" (the bird) refers to a bunch of different genera and species, so there's no easy place to redirect Category:Kites (birds) and when depicted in art, the particular species is often unknown. Themightyquill (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. Perhaps dab into aircraft and a list of the bird genera that 'kite' may apply to? As or the 'in art' part, I think Category:Kites (birds) in art would be fine since of course we cannot necessarily scientifically classify the species of an artistic depiction of a bird, so common name is more appropriate. Josh (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support while I do think that the flying thing is the most common use (as can be seen from a Google images search for kites). However on Commons the threshold for primacy is higher than on WP, also the bird gets more views (15,673) than the flying thing (13,853), the film gets 13,497 and geometry gets 6,217 [[6]] so it seems that the WP article should probably be moved. I'm not sure about the qualifier but one is needed anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment Reverted this close. Problematic as the consequences of the move are problematic and have not been discussed. This should not have been closed four years after the last contributions without further consultation when there is no clear consensus and a clear plan. @Crouch, Swale, Joshbaumgartner, Themightyquill, and Sbb1413: — Preceding unsigned comment added by billinghurst (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
| Category:Location of flags | Merge into | Category:Flags by location | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| change to reflect normal index naming format: "Topic by sorting criteria" | |||
| Josh (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
- Support @Joshbaumgartner: --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support --Elkost (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Sahaib (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner, Estopedist1, Elkost, and Sahaib: We should close this discussion due to unanimous support. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions |  Rename category per nom | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Category:B-24 Liberator mid-upper turrets | Merge into | Category:Consolidated B-24 Liberator dorsal gun turrets | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| These appear to be the same turret position. | |||
| Josh (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
- @Joshbaumgartner: I support the merger. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Category:Audio files about Felis silvestris Category:Audio files of Felis silvestris | Merge into | Category:Audio files of Felis silvestris catus | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 categories for the same thing should be 1 category. There are a few files of humans pronouncing the word 'cat' that should be removed to proper pronounciation categories. The 'about' category may have been an attempt at an umbrella for audio of cat sounds and people saying cat, but I don't see a reason to keep this. | |||
| Josh (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
Estopedist1 (talk · contribs) originally made the move request for Category:Audio files about Felis silvestris to Category:Audio files of Felis silvestris, but I really think all 3 can be made into 1. Josh (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I support the merger. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge per nom | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
for my vehicle 103.74.111.101 13:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- nonsense request. But here are problems: maybe category:Nysa should be disambiguation. And also phrase "Nysa (light commerical vehicle)" is too long. Enwiki has en:ZSD Nysa, but in Commons it is category:Nysa 522--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- I propose: Category:Nysa (light commercial vehicle) to Category:Nysa (vehicle), because enwiki en:ZSD Nysa is not self-explaining. For the DAB topic I opened another CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Should I move this category to the new title? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Sbb1413: probably yes Estopedist1 (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Moved to the new name. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Borvan53 (talk · contribs) requested move to a more appropriate name per move request. There is a hodge podge of different images that under Category:Manufacturing but require some sorting after that. Recommend that this be upmerged to Category:Manufacturing and the contents be categorized within that as appropriate. Josh (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Looks as though it was initially set up for a specific fabrication shop in Kuwait, but that purpose is not clear from the category title. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes if it was a generic category it would be sensitive case and plural namely Category:Fabrication shops. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
stale discussion. Does "fabrication shop" makes sense? More suitable parent may be category:Manufacturing (we even don't have Category:Fabrication). But does "manufacturing shop" makes sense?--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ||||
| Actions | Files and categories up merged to better categories | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
is Category:Entrances redundant with Category:Entrances and exits? Themightyquill (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Partly but some images might specifically show entrances (when outside something) and exists (when inside something) so although there is an overlap its not a complete duplicate. Some things (like archways as entrances/exists) don't look any different from either side. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- That would be a logical separation - entrances from outside, exits from inside. Or things marked exit, or exit only, emergency exits, etc. But I don't have the sense that's what's being done here. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill and Crouch, Swale: What should we do with this category? Also, I don't like Intersectional categories like Entrances and exits. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Exits also exists so maybe the intersection category should be deleted though entrances and exists have a lot in common and many will be both depending on which way you are travelling. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions |
| |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||