Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2020/03
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 March 2020
cross wiki spam Quakewoody (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Empty, created by IP. --Achim (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You are not currently logged in. While you are free to edit without logging in, your IP address (viewable on your talkpage, where you can check messages sent to your IP) will be recorded in this page's edit history. Creating an account will conceal your IP address and provide you with many other benefits. Please do not save test edits. If you want to experiment, please use the Sandbox. 2001:41D0:602:9CC:0:0:0:0 10:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Vandal rq. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Wrongly created with unreasonable name N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 12:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. GFJ (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Serves same purpose as its parent category Category:Images with opaque backgrounds. Jonteemil (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete --Amada44 talk to me 20:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Túrelio. GFJ (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Propose renaming this to something like Category:Templos, Cyprus, to prevent getting unrelated files for temples. This category could then become a disambiguation category. Auntof6 (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Category renamed by User:Xaris333. GFJ (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Copy of Category:Krasnoyarsk girls gymnasium Vyacheslav Bukharov (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Krasnoyarsk girls gymnasium. GFJ (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Empty category FredWalsh (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Empty category m FredWalsh (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Empty category FredWalsh (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Empty category. FredWalsh (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. GFJ (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Empty category. FredWalsh (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Empty category. FredWalsh (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Empty category. FredWalsh (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Request by own creator, disused category. Ecummenic (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
It appears to be an accidental creation ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- yes, deleted. Rudolphous (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
typo in the name ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 09:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. @Gone Postal: No need to discuss typos. Just use {{Bad name}} next time. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Category:Kindle Oasis 2 Dienthoaiquangcao60 (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Nonsense, nothing to discuss. --jdx Re: 06:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
All files has been removed to a correct Category:Monuments and memorials in Kachkanar. Vyacheslav Bukharov (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
deletion Pacopac (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Done: empty. --JuTa 01:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete like Category:Shops in the Americas as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Travel in the Americas Themightyquill (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm skeptical that this category is necessary. Themightyquill (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's unnecessary. The name basically means unidentified locations in Europe or Asia, and the only contents are categories for unidentified locations in each of those two places. Things in any category for the supercontinent Eurasia should be only for things that apply to Eurasia as a whole. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
out of scope. images are nominated, which will empty the category. wikidata item only kept due to the presence on commons. Quakewoody (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- update - wikidata deleted the item used for the infobox. and one remaining photo is marked as deleted via the discussion, but someone forgot to actually delete it. Quakewoody (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Done: empty. --4nn1l2 (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
duble duble ПАШКА788881 (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Categories have been merged --Butko (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Butko redirected the category to Category:Nataliya Nikonorova. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
LTA cross wiki spam Quakewoody (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete --Trade (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Incorrect name anyway. Now empty also. Taivo (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
LTA cross wiki spam Quakewoody (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete--Trade (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Long-term abuse, I'll block the creator indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
wrong name Estevoaei (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- speedy close So? It's already redirected. No DR action needed. Put a speedy {{Speedydelete}} tag on it, if you want to tidy up. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Speedy delete it was only at this title for around 4 minutes and clearly falls under implausible errors. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. pandakekok9 09:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
Please see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q88654009 Trade (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Quakewoody (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. I blocked the creator indefinitely due to long-term abuse as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
please move to Category:Falkerscher Hof Athletograph (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:Falkerscher Hof. --Achim (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
out of scope. images and wikidata infobox are all nominated Quakewoody (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Notifications#/notifications-filter 2600:8801:2200:3B5:51A0:3CA:56D6:DE93 18:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done: nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Lack of tourism in Chile by city Lordysart (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Dear colleague Lordysart, you have only 4 edits here in Commons (at least under this user name), all of them related to this page. Obviously you have not any experience in Commons. Before starting this discussion page you had to read carefully the general instructions in page Commons:Categories for discussion, where is clearly stated that these discussions are about naming of categories. Anyway, if you consider that a subcategory is lacking (e.g. about cities in Chile), you could ask somebody to create it. --Elkost (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Unhelpful comment by novice. I just mention that category:Tourism in Chile by city is not yet existing. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Reasons for discussion request: per the official name of the cathedral on the diocesan website. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- What exactly is your proposal, Laurel Lodged? --AFBorchert (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Propose to change the name to Category:Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Sligo Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry. The nomination process in Commons is quite different from Wiki. Not sure how to do it. Anyway, the name should change to above because this is what the diocesan website calls it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
No problem, I agree to the proposed name change. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, is St. Mary's wholly wrong (and should therefore be deleted) or is it an unofficial alternative (in which case a redirect should be left behind)? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is ok to leave a redirect. Take for example the entry at the Dictionary of Irish Architecture where the cathedral is refered to as CATHEDRAL OF ST MARY (RC). This follows the tradition as the ancient cathedral of Elphin was dedicated to St. Mary and not to one of the founding saints, i.e. St. Patrick or St. Assicus. But following 19th-century tradition, the cathedral was dedicated to the Immaculate Conception. The full name is the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary but this is commonly abbreviated to Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Sligo. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Catégorie invalide, la bonne catégorie est Category:Ice hockey in Canada.
Invalid category, replaced by Category:Ice hockey in Canada Cortomaltais (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Theoretically, since we have Category:Hockey with sub-categories for different variants, we could group different variants of hockey in Canada into a general category, but a) I don't see the point and b) this hasn't been done for any other countries. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Catégorie à supprimer en double avec Category:Mission crosses in Pyrénées-Atlantiques Emeltet (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is clear duplication. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
This is an empty category, the only image that was in it has been moved to Category:Flags with three horizontal stripes of gray, black and brown color combination. Pennenetui3000 (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
duplicate Theklan (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, it duplicates Category:Faculty of Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. "Faculty" as a synonym for academic staff is perhaps a little confusing to international users, but that's a different discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Wrong spelling (capital C), now obsolete, no need to keep it, because it only confuses Eissink (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. No need for redirects based on capitalization. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Double nonsense! Thomas Heinrich Voigt died in 1896. His successor released his works as T. H. Voigt Mutter Erde (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- So rename to Category:Thomas Heinrich Voigt? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- A better idea: User:Rhadamante should rework all his changes Mutter Erde (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks to Rhadamante Mutter Erde (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Mutter Erde (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Reasons for discussion request: per the official name of the cathedral on the diocesan website. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- What exactly is your proposal, Laurel Lodged? --AFBorchert (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Propose to change the name to Category:Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Sligo Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry. The nomination process in Commons is quite different from Wiki. Not sure how to do it. Anyway, the name should change to above because this is what the diocesan website calls it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
No problem, I agree to the proposed name change. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, is St. Mary's wholly wrong (and should therefore be deleted) or is it an unofficial alternative (in which case a redirect should be left behind)? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is ok to leave a redirect. Take for example the entry at the Dictionary of Irish Architecture where the cathedral is refered to as CATHEDRAL OF ST MARY (RC). This follows the tradition as the ancient cathedral of Elphin was dedicated to St. Mary and not to one of the founding saints, i.e. St. Patrick or St. Assicus. But following 19th-century tradition, the cathedral was dedicated to the Immaculate Conception. The full name is the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary but this is commonly abbreviated to Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Sligo. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you please change the name of this category to "East German gymnastics championships 1976" with a capital "G"? is you know a bit about East Germany or gymnastics, you should also try to find out if East Germany actually had gymnastics championships that year, there's just two images (one cropped from the other). The event might be misatribuated. If not, try to find more photos to pin in there, The German Federal archive has millions of images uploaded here. Thanks in advance. 64.43.7.199 22:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Non-controversial move to Category:East German gymnastics championships 1976. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Mistake, forgot the actual title of the song - obsolete Eissink (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. @Eissink: We all make mistakes, but they don't need to be discussed. Next time, please use {{Bad name}}. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- 'Keep' Found another. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept. Not empty. Logical subcat in Category:XRCO Awards.--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
please see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q81218265 Trade (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This category must be deleted for wrong name DanbagW (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Empty category. FredWalsh (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agree With no objection against recreation if some files will turn up later.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
empty category Quakewoody (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
For the same reasoning used in Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/02/Category:Spring in winter, the following categories should be deleted. Further, I would say that none of the content of these need to remain under any "Spring flowers" category. That's because most of the content is either another spring flowers in winter category or a category such as Category:Asparagales in winter 2017-2018 which doesn't specify flowers. Yes, those may be flowering plants, but the category names don't specify that the images show flowers.
- Category:Spring flowers in winter
- Category:Spring flowers in winter 2015-2016
- Category:Spring flowers in winter 2015-2016 in Germany
- Category:Spring flowers in winter 2015-2016 in Hockenheim
- Category:Spring flowers in winter 2015-2016 in Hockenheimer Rheinbogen
- Category:Spring flowers in winter 2015-2016 in Reilingen
- Category:Spring flowers in winter 2015-2016 in Saarbrücken
- Category:Spring flowers in winter 2015-2016 in the Schwetzinger Hardt
- Category:Spring flowers in winter 2017-2018
- Category:Spring flowers in winter 2017-2018 in Germany
- Category:Spring flowers in winter 2017-2018 in Hockenheim
- Category:Spring flowers in winter 2017-2018 in Reilingen
- Category:Spring flowers in winter in Germany
-- Auntof6 (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Over a month with no objections - I think you're okay to proceed. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: OK, I've recategorized everyting that was in these categories and tagged the categories as empty. I also tagged some related templates as unused. In the process, I discovered four categories with names starting with "Spring in winter", which I suppose I'll start a separate discussion for. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Over a month with no objections - I think you're okay to proceed. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Closing: all cats listed have been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:Asana. No need to have a category for unidentified ones: they can just go in the main category. Auntof6 (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Asana
sis a category solely for subcategories, of which there are quite a few, each containing subcategories, and each of those contains photographs, many hundreds in all. The last thing we want is unidentified asanas at the top level of this tree! That would encourage the placing of yet more photographs at the top level: highly undesirable, and the antithesis of categorisation. Happy to have the unidentified images deleted, or the category renamed to "Asanas requiring categorisation", but please not in the grandparent category, that'd be a disaster.
- In addition, all the high-quality asana images here on Commons have been categorised in far more detail, e.g. Asana / Arm Support Asana / Astavakrasana. Many of the unidentified asanas may be of low quality in terms of demonstrating postural yoga: they may be executed poorly, may represent new or minor variants of poses, may be misnamed or mislabelled, or may be preparatory poses photographed on the way to a completed asana. If there was to be a collection of images exactly unrepresentative of what an asana should consist of, it would be this category; so having the main category containing only a random selection of these would give the worst possible impression of Commons's coverage of yoga. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict)Note: There is no real Category:Asanas. It redirects to Category:Asana, which is not only for subcategories. To encourage categorizing of images, the template {{Categorise}} could be put on the parent category. I see no advantage in having a separate category for unidentified asanas, and the proposed upmerge would be in line with other decisions to leave images in higher-level categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think you're rather missing the point with that comment. The main category as I showed in the "Asana / Arm Support Asana / Astavakrasana" example above is indeed Asana, but it is no more desirable to populate Category:Asanas which quite rightly says "This category is located at Category:Asana Note: This category should be empty. Any content should be recategorised." than to populate Category:Asana with a clutter of the worst available examples of asana. I'm sorry you can't see the advantage, which I have explained clearly and as briefly as possible above. The uncategorised photos are the ones that we should LEAST wish to see at the top level; all those that accurately illustrate a pose such as Astavakrasana are in that specific category. We absolutely should not want to misdirect visitors in search of an image of Asana to the worst possible illustrations. I fully appreciate you are trying to reduce "unidentified" categories, no doubt a worthy task, but removing this category would do real damage both to the Yoga project and to Commons. It may help if you think of these as largely "unclassifiable" or "not worth classifying" or "not recommended as examples of Asana". If you still find this difficult, you may find it helpful to look at one or two of the categories for individual asanas, say Category:Ardha Chandrasana, where you will see that the examples are all well-formed, illustrating the main pose and variations. I do hope this is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap and Auntof6: actually, it seems to be hard case :) But because only experts can do further categorization then I think "category:Unidentified asanas" is pointless. "Category:Asanas" is already so narrow topic. Compare eg category:Unidentified sounds (consist of only hard ones to categorize). In general, Auntof6 already did right notes--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- one note yet: in general, if seems that no difference between eg "unidentified asanas" and hypothetical "uncategorized files of asanas" then upmerging should be best solution--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- With much respect, I'd point out that Asana is at the root of a tree of 153 child and grandchild categories! The very last thing we want is a mess of unsorted stuff right there at the root. I'll see what I can sort out - many of the photos can clearly go into at least a child category, even if the exact grandchild is not easy to determine. I am very disappointed by the attitudes here, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- nice job, user:Chiswick Chap! The category is empty. I put there {{Categorise}}. This category to be deleted and we are using category "Asanas" for uncategorized files related to Asanas--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Well, thanks, I guess, but I'm not trying to do a "nice job" to help you: I think exactly the wrong thing is being done, and I'm trying to turn a disastrous car-crash into a survivable accident. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- nice job, user:Chiswick Chap! The category is empty. I put there {{Categorise}}. This category to be deleted and we are using category "Asanas" for uncategorized files related to Asanas--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- With much respect, I'd point out that Asana is at the root of a tree of 153 child and grandchild categories! The very last thing we want is a mess of unsorted stuff right there at the root. I'll see what I can sort out - many of the photos can clearly go into at least a child category, even if the exact grandchild is not easy to determine. I am very disappointed by the attitudes here, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Done: deleted as empty. --JuTa 18:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
symbols - or – in the names of the subcategories should be unified. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- I agree in principle (and encourage the use of - for ease of use) but I can't see what you're referring to exactly. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Examples: Category:Unicode 13A0–13FF Cherokee, Category:Unicode A800–A82F Syloti Nagri. This also makes some blocks in tables like on Category:Unicode BMP be marked as having no corresponding category, although there exists one (with a different dash). I would like to deal with this, although a supressredirect right would probably be useful (I don't know how to get it on Commons). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Mostly, they are in Category:Unicode BMP no? I don't see any others, and for the moment, I can't figure out how to search for – on commons. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Mostly, although there are two in the SMP. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Mostly, they are in Category:Unicode BMP no? I don't see any others, and for the moment, I can't figure out how to search for – on commons. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Do you think redirects should be left? In this case, they should probably be also created for the rest. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Examples: Category:Unicode 13A0–13FF Cherokee, Category:Unicode A800–A82F Syloti Nagri. This also makes some blocks in tables like on Category:Unicode BMP be marked as having no corresponding category, although there exists one (with a different dash). I would like to deal with this, although a supressredirect right would probably be useful (I don't know how to get it on Commons). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think it's necessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Moved every subcategory with an en dash to the name with hyphen-minus for convenience. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Not required and unnecessary. So tagging for deletion after discussion Dmuteg (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Seems redundant with Category:Jaskaran Singh Gandhi. I would say that category is also questionable, but whatever. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)`
Done: Not notable. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 16:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Do we need a category for history of this institution, when the images only go back to 2011? Auntof6 (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- sounds suspicious per user:Auntof6. Do we really have any analogue case? If not, then upmerging to parent category--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The 23 Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) are the elite technological institutions of national importance in India, formed by a special Act of Parliament. As such they are important. IIT Mandi is unique among the IITs as it is situated in a remote river valley in the Himalayas. When it started here in 2010, there was a 500-acre greenfield near a village with pop, ~150. In just 10 years, it was built from scratch to an institute that is a national leader in some aspects, and is making a name globally. How this was accomplished is an interesting story in institution-building. See http://iitmandi.ac.in/7thconvocation_speech/ for some idea of this journey. We are in the process of documenting this history in Wikipedia. Hence, the creation of this Commons Category. It is true that this history is relatively recent compared to the history of nations, etc. Tagooty (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Tagooty: How would you feel about Category:Construction of the Indian Institute of Technology Mandi instead? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Construction has a connotation of buildings, of civil engg. This category contains much more: the first batch of students, the first Convocation, the first Exodia (technical-cultural fest), etc. A couple of alternatives:
- (1) Category:Annals of IIT Mandi (2009-2019) or Category:Annals of IIT Mandi (2009), ..., Category:Annals of IIT Mandi (2019)? There are many such pages e.g. Category:Annals of the Carnegie Museum (1906-1908)
- (2) Replace "Annals" by "Development". See Category:Development. Could have categories:
- Development:
- Development of Universities:
- Development of IIT Mandi (2009-2018)
- Development of Universities:
- Tagooty (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Tagooty: I was suggesting you keep a category for construction (of buildings) which would fit nicely in Category:Construction in Himachal Pradesh, and move the other images into the main category or other suitable categories. Category:Annals of the Carnegie Museum (1906-1908) is not a category for various images of the history of the museum, it's for a book called "Annals of the Carnegie Museum". Given that Category:Development of universities doesn't exist, your second proposal doesn't seem very promising either. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Ok, will do. Tagooty (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Moved Category:History of Indian Institute of Technology Mandi to Category:Construction of Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, and marked the History category for deletion. Tagooty (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
from talk page:
| Rename Category:National Health Service Wales (talk) to Category:NHS Wales (26 entries moved, 0 to go) (Requested by Elshad) National Health Service Wales ;NHS Wales ;r; Previous editor moved the category without discussion and to an incorrect name, as the name of the service is NHS Wales not National Health Service Wales |
- @Elshad: it is bad move, although enwiki has this solution. Whenever possible we should avoid acronyms in categories' names--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: but in this case it is not an abbreviation, it is the legal name of the health service. NHS Wales is the correct name, not an abbreviation. Elshad (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Estopedist1 (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Done: Harmonised with (a) legal name of entity (2) cy:wp (3) en:wp. This was a contentious move and should have been discussed. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Downmerge to Category:Photographs by David Wilson. All images by this author seem to be photographs. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Support The parent category is called Category:Photographs by Flickr photographer which has mostly subcategories that go by the scheme of "Photograps by <name>". So for the sake of consistency, we should downmerge this one as proposed. De728631 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4 and De728631: waiting to be speedy deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Creator also agrees to delete. Taivo (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I created this category to contain photographs by Commons photographer Raysonho (talk · contribs). This user has asked me to delete this category, so as a courtesy, I have nominated it for deletion. Mindmatrix 14:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Admins, it's been over 2 months. I really hate to see this mess. Please delete this category. Raysonho @ Open Grid Scheduler / Grid Engine (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Mindmatrix: You should use the {{Speedy}} template with "G7. Author or uploader request deletion" and include the same message. FredWalsh (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've emptied the category and tagged it for speedy deletion. Mindmatrix 00:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Mindmatrix: You should use the {{Speedy}} template with "G7. Author or uploader request deletion" and include the same message. FredWalsh (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd. FredWalsh (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Created by mistake, Category:Powstańców Śląskich Avenue in Kraków is already existing, created by myself 6 years ago... Misiek2 (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. FredWalsh (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Done: author request. --ƏXPLICIT 04:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Is he called Anton or Albertus (or both)? NearEMPTiness (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- @NearEMPTiness: it is Wikipedia topic. See enwiki en:Albertus Willem Sijthoff. We already have Category:Albertus Willem Sijthoff--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I subsequently requested that this File will be renamed to Albertus Willem Sijthoff. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- No objections here. --oSeveno (User talk) 11:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @NearEMPTiness: this category is waiting to be speedy deleted and then CFD can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- No objections here. --oSeveno (User talk) 11:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I subsequently requested that this File will be renamed to Albertus Willem Sijthoff. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
per discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
As far as I understand, "Kesenian" means something like "art" in Bahasa Indonesia. So probably this category is redundant, and apart from that should be more specific. Till (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Till.niermann: I have moved the pics into other category. You may want to nominate it for deletion. Labdajiwa (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what it's unlikely. The problem is that the parent category is not sorted by date. I was doing some sorting earlier but if there's more, then it will be back where it was. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- If you can find another couple of files from 21 June 2005 in the parent category, then we can keep the category. I think it’s highly unlikely given that some of these files have been on Commons for almost a decade. FredWalsh (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Solved. Just searched on "Porn Star Karaoke" and "21 june 2005" and Julie Night's photograph popped up. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- If you can find another couple of files from 21 June 2005 in the parent category, then we can keep the category. I think it’s highly unlikely given that some of these files have been on Commons for almost a decade. FredWalsh (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept has two items now and fits in that category scheme, anyhow. --rimshottalk 23:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- You claimed that "It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category", yet the "very unlikely" happened. Tm (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Withdrawn per Tm. FredWalsh (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done: withdrawn. --ƏXPLICIT 06:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
cross wiki spam Quakewoody (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand. So long as the photos are kept, doesn't it make sense to keep the category? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- At the time of the nomination, the photos were also nominated. How the subject matter was deleted on every project but here is beyond me. Quakewoody (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. FredWalsh (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - as long as we have at least one image of the person. Christian75 (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Please delete this category and its files and get rid of this spam! Bencemac (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete SPAM -- — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 19:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Done: by Gbawden. --ƏXPLICIT 06:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
So this category is for logos and emblems that uses {{PD-textlogo}} which is used by... that's right: logos. This category could contain every single file that uses {{PD-textlogo}} since the template is solely used by logos. For that there is already Category:PD textlogo though so this category is redundant. Jonteemil (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 06:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
This Category is a redirect to a redirect to a redirect, so completely obsolete Eissink (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. I have fixed this multiple redirect issue. This redirect category is the result of multiple moves. It should be kept because "if the old category name is a correct old or synonymic or alternative name of the subject or a correct expectable name for such a category, it should be marked with a {{Category redirect}} template permanently" (see Commons:Rename a category#Should the old category be deleted?). --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Neutral I think it's unlikely someone will try to use this category and fail to find the new one, but it hurts nothing. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 06:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a redirect that is obsolete and that might lead to confusion Eissink (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. What confusion? Category:Empty shelves during 2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic in the United States was moved to Category:Empty shelves during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States per the discussion on Category talk:COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory (hundreds of categories were moved per this discussion). Category:Empty shelves during 2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic in the United States should be kept because "if the old category name is a correct old or synonymic or alternative name of the subject or a correct expectable name for such a category, it should be marked with a {{Category redirect}} template permanently" (see Commons:Rename a category#Should the old category be deleted?). --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral I think it's unlikely someone will try to use this category and fail to find the new one, but it hurts nothing. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 06:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
obsolete category? Estopedist1 (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete It seems this may have been intended for the same sort of data that is now held in Wikidata. FredWalsh (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 07:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
cross wiki spam Quakewoody (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- It seems like an appropriate category for the image it (now) contains. If you would like to nominate that image for deletion, the category can be deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- The wikidata item was deleted, I deleted it from the category. And the image is now nominated as well. Quakewoody (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. FredWalsh (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted -- CptViraj (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Found another one.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn by proposer. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- ABM. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn by proposer. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- ABM. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn by proposer. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- ABM. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn by proposer. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- ABM. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn by proposer. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- ABM. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn by proposer. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- ABM. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn by proposer. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
What is the exact difference between decorated and decorative tiles? When should a picture of a tile be in the Category:Decorated tiles and when in the Category: Decorative tiles? Can they be merged? JopkeB (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
And I see that some subcategories have both categories as parent categories, that cannot be right. JopkeB (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- From a linguistic point of view, I'd use [Decorated tiles] for cases where each individual tile is a piece of art in itself and [Decorative tiles] for all tiles used in an artistic way. To me, mosaics would be decorative but not decorated tiles, since each individual tile is just one undecorated color. In that sense, [Decorated tiles] should be a subcategory of [Decorative tiles]. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @HyperGaruda: Thanks for your explanation. It seems logical to me. And since there is no further discussion I'll use it. JopkeB (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Conclusions:
- A Decorated tile is a tile that is a piece of art in itself.
- A Decorative tile is a tile that is decorative but is not a piece of art in itself.
- Category:Decorated tiles is a subcategory of Category:Decorative tiles.
Empty category. FredWalsh (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep It now has a signature-file in it. Moreover, as stated at the closure of Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/07/Category:Ariana Fox: with the introduction of Wikidata Infobox, this (...) discussion to delete single-item categories meanwhile is pointless. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please read the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy:
- "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media".
- The word "pages" and "media" are plural (yes in the world of advertising, "media" is singular but that is not what we are here for). This implies (and should not need defining) that categories should have two or more files as members. This category does not have two of more files. If we find a second file to go here, there is no objection to recreating the category. All you would have to do is ask the administrator to undelete the category. FredWalsh (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please read the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy:
closed.--RZuo (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Height barriers redundant with Category:High vehicle barriers? Themightyquill (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- You are right. One needs to be integrated. I'd say Category:Height barriers --Mateus2019 (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support Height barriers.--RZuo (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Height barriers. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete as redundant with Category:Roman Catholic schools in Canada. Same goes for Category:Catholic secondary schools in North America, Category:Catholic secondary schools in Canada, Category:Catholic secondary schools in Ontario, Category:Catholic schools in Ireland, Category:Catholic schools in the United Kingdom, Category:Catholic secondary schools in the United Kingdom, and Category:Catholic secondary schools in Scotland -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Why not the rest of the categories whose names start with "Catholic schools"? If they don't have a corresponding "Roman Catholic schools" category, they could be renamed. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Wrong name for this category > changed to 'Het Loo in Admirandorum quadruplex spectaculum'. This category serves no purpose whatsoever anymore. Ecritures (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 09:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Inappropriate capitalization, see e.g. Category:Metabolic pathways. Leyo 21:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agree that the capitalization is incorrect. But we also have Category:Glycolysis. The nominated cat is an orphan whereas this other one is tied to a bunch of wikipedias' articles about this named topic. So I propose merge nom'ed into that other. DMacks (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Merge. Glycolysis is a pathway, there's no "glycolysis pathway" that's a subtopic of glycolysis. It we wanted to subcategorize, I'd suggest the obvious subcategories are "glycolysis intermediates", "glycolysis enzymes" (which we have) and "glycolysis diagrams". Blythwood (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm fine with your proposed new subcategories. Would you be willing to create and fill them? --Leyo 08:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Since the category is now empty, it could just be deleted. --Leyo 23:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC) → Done
Should be discussed along with Category:Academic works about mathematics. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Academic works about mathematics Estopedist1 (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep If it were up to me, I wouldn't necessarily have diffused such a small number of images by year at all. But given that a diffusion scheme by year is in place, we should diffuse fully, and that means creating categories we wouldn't otherwise create in isolation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Support: As I see, the dates are included in the names of some of the files, so all singular files in the yearly Exxxotica categories should ideally by categorised all together until there are another 2-3 more, for say 2007, to be in a Sub-Category.Rereader1996 (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete Not a valid reason to delete a category that will be recreated sooner or latter, wasting time and resources. Tm (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
What is the topic of this category? Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- It seems to be the Catalan word for Category:Reed (plant)? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thought it was something like that, or maybe "cane". Category:Cane exists but that is some kind of dog category which is also not very clear, maybe also a non-English word, and has cane (plant) related images. Can I just change that unidentified dog category to this category and redirect "canyes"? Something should be done with both cats and that would solve it I think. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Ruff tuff cream puff@Themightyquill: I suggest to change the nominated category into the redirect to Category:Reed (plant) (per Wikidata:Q2734060). The content to be upmerged Estopedist1 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Ok I have merged and redirected "Canyes in music" to "Reeds (music)" which appears to be the topic in question as most of the files in "Canyes in music" are pictures of reeds used in instruments; and merged and redirected "Canyes" to "Reed (plant)". Thank you Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Ruff tuff cream puff@Themightyquill: I suggest to change the nominated category into the redirect to Category:Reed (plant) (per Wikidata:Q2734060). The content to be upmerged Estopedist1 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thought it was something like that, or maybe "cane". Category:Cane exists but that is some kind of dog category which is also not very clear, maybe also a non-English word, and has cane (plant) related images. Can I just change that unidentified dog category to this category and redirect "canyes"? Something should be done with both cats and that would solve it I think. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Redirected by Ruff tuff cream puff. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I remember in the early 2010's (c. 2012) there was a discussion on Ron Blakey's maps (as these were being used on all major geological period articles at the time) and the concensus was that they were copyrighted and were subsequently deleted. While all these maps are from papers released under creative commons licenses, they are not fundamentally transformative of Ron Blakey's work and often say they are used under Ron Blakely's permission, therefore they are not suitable for commons and should be deleted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
If you think this is the case, you should open a DR on the whole category using VFC. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Apparently File:Eastern_North_American_Paleogeograpy_Middle_Devonian.png is ok according to the OSRS ticket, but as a non-admin I can't verify the contents. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination including the member items except the apparent OTRS one. FredWalsh (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Not discussion about the category (CFD), but discussion about files (DR). Discussion takes places at Category talk:Maps by Ron Blakey, or at concrete, problematic files Estopedist1 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
This category is a duplicate of "Category:Sandy Hook pilots" Greg Henderson 23:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is now that you have rearranged things. Sandy Hook Pilots is an organization and the photo/photos in that category were of the organization. The generic term, Sandy Hook pilot is for people who may or may not belong to that organization, but historically piloted boats at Sandy Hook. Apprentice pilots were putting in hours piloting boats to be able to join the organization and become members of the Pilots. Part of the confusion is that "Sandy Hook pilot", the position, when plural, becomes "Sandy Hook pilots" with a small "p", which is the same words as "Sandy Hook Pilots" with a big "P", the organization. I am restoring some of the changes you made so people can see the distinction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), the two Wiki Commons categories actually have the same spelling, but one has an upper 'P'. In your above paragraph, you use the category without the 's', in terms of wikidata, which is not the same as the category. So, there are two categories: Category:Sandy Hook Pilots and Category:Sandy Hook pilots, which appears redundant. I am very interested in this topic because my gg grandfather was a Sandy Hook Pilot and worked for the organization called the "Board of Commissioners of Pilots." In addition, there is a Wikipedia article called, Sandy Hook pilot, which explains this. So, for Wikimedia, I suggest that we have a new category called, "Sandy Hook Pilots Association", to represent the organization, and one for the actual people, "Sandy Hook pilots." Let me know what you think?--Greg Henderson 15:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- If Category:Sandy Hook pilots is for pilots from Sandy Hook who may not be members of the organization, it should be renamed Category:Maritime pilots from Sandy Hook to match with Category:Maritime pilots. If you want a category strictly for members of the organization, it could be created at Category:Sandy Hook Pilots members or something similar. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Themightyquill: The Category:Sandy Hook pilots is for pilots that are part of the Sandy Hook Organization. Category:Maritime pilots is for those that are not part of that organization. A new category was created for Category:Sandy Hook Pilots Association. --Greg Henderson 18:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- The current status, using Category:Sandy Hook Pilots Association, looks fine to me. I think this can be closed. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- BMacZero Thank You! Tag has been removed. --Greg Henderson 15:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem is solved: we have Category:Sandy Hook Pilots Association and its subcategory category:Sandy Hook pilots Estopedist1 (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Two items now.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep' I created this category, since all but one of the other files concerning this person were filed under "Kim Chambers in 20XX"-categories. In this way, Kim Chambers's parent category is more streamlined, as are the subcategories "Porn actresses in 1999" and "People of the United States in 1999." Otherwise, some of the files would be dated by year, while others weren't. That would make it all look somewhat chaotic.
- See also my creations; Category:Professional cycling teams in 1975, Category:Professional cycling teams in 1963,Category:2010 Grapevine Women's $50,000 Tennis Classic-July, Category:1998 in Orlando, Category:2017 in San Salvador,Category:1991 events in Washington, D.C., Category:Netherlands at the 1968 Summer Olympics, Category:1932 in St. Louis, Missouri, Category:1518 books from Italy, Category:Lobby cards of the United States, 1966, Category:1985 in Cannes, Category:1953 in North Carolina, Category:2003 Ordina Open, Category:2009 Open d'Orléans, Category:1923 in Aachen, Category:Monarchs in 1929, Category:Leslie's Weekly, 1919, Category:1982 in Mali, Category:1987 in Mali and Category:Auctions in 1980.
- Or other categories I did no create, like Category:Victoria of the United Kingdom in 1877, Category:Victoria of the United Kingdom in 1889 and Category:George V of the United Kingdom in 1913
- Even though all those categories have a single item, it is a positive thing to have these categories at hand.
- Naturally, if there is a rule against " "by year"-categories wth only one file" I am not aware of, please inform me, and take the proper action against these categories too.
- Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff5102: please read the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy:
- "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media".
- The word "pages" and "media" are plural (yes in the world of advertising, "media" is singular but that is not what we are here for). This implies (and should not need defining) that categories should have two or more files as members. This category does not have two of more files. If we find a second file to go here, there is no objection to recreating the category. All you would have to do is ask the administrator to undelete the category.
- As far as the categories you mentioned, someone will eventually get around to tagging them for deletion. FredWalsh (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Good point, although it looks to me like a bit of a stretch (but on the other hand, I never looked at previous categories-discussions). I do not see any ruling at COM:CAT that demands at least two files in any category. Maybe we should discuss this at Commons talk:Category scheme People first? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff5102: please read the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy:
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep' I created this category, since all but one of the other files concerning this person were filed under "Kim Chambers in 20XX"-categories. In this way, Kim Chambers's parent category is more streamlined, as are the subcategories "Porn actresses in 2006" and "People of the United States in 2006." Otherwise, some of the files would be dated by year, while others weren't. That would make it all look somewhat chaotic.
- See also my creations; Category:Professional cycling teams in 1975, Category:Professional cycling teams in 1963,Category:2010 Grapevine Women's $50,000 Tennis Classic-July, Category:1998 in Orlando, Category:2017 in San Salvador,Category:1991 events in Washington, D.C., Category:Netherlands at the 1968 Summer Olympics, Category:1932 in St. Louis, Missouri, Category:1518 books from Italy, Category:Lobby cards of the United States, 1966, Category:1985 in Cannes, Category:1953 in North Carolina, Category:2003 Ordina Open, Category:2009 Open d'Orléans, Category:1923 in Aachen, Category:Monarchs in 1929, Category:Leslie's Weekly, 1919, Category:1982 in Mali, Category:1987 in Mali and Category:Auctions in 1980.
- Or other categories I did no create, like Category:Victoria of the United Kingdom in 1877, Category:Victoria of the United Kingdom in 1889 and Category:George V of the United Kingdom in 1913
- Even though all those categories have a single item, it is a positive thing to have these categories at hand.
- Naturally, if there is a rule against " "by year"-categories wth only one file" I am not aware of, please inform me, and take the proper action against these categories too.
- Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please read the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy:
- "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media".
- The word "pages" and "media" are plural (yes in the world of advertising, "media" is singular but that is not what we are here for). This implies (and should not need defining) that categories should have two or more files as members. This category does not have two of more files. If we find a second file to go here, there is no objection to recreating the category. All you would have to do is ask the administrator to undelete the category.
- As far as the categories you mentioned, someone will eventually get around to tagging them for deletion. FredWalsh (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please read the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy:
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Three items now.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Suggest correcting capitalisation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, capitalization is off and should be corrected. However I would like to propose alternative solution: delete the category. I created it when I wrote {{Interwiki from wikidata}} template to track if it works fine. It does and I do not believe we need the template. So unless the are some other uses for it, I would like to delete it. Deleting would mean changing the template so it is no longer added and than delete empty category. --Jarekt (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per Jarekt. FredWalsh (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4@FredWalsh: the template is still massively used (99,000 times). If we remove it from Template:Number cat I guess that most of usage are gone then. Could you help here, Jarekt? Estopedist1 (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Doing… I removed the category from {{Interwiki from wikidata}}. Lets see if the numbers are going to drop. --Jarekt (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Jarekt: I think this category is still being transcluded from somewhere, ~70k uses left in this tracking category still, mostly taxons. I've removed it from the infobox (and will delete Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox providing interwiki links shortly), so it must be somewhere else. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Mike I am quite confused by this one, so I did some tests on Category:Aaaaba page. If you replace the text of that page and without saving preview it you can use it to test stuff. I replaced that page with:
- blank -> No interwiki links, no Category:Interwiki from wikidata present
{{Interwiki from wikidata}}-> Interwiki links present, no Category:Interwiki from wikidata{{Wikidata Infobox}}-> interwiki links, and Category:Interwiki from wikidata present
- However I still have no idea where is this category added. --Jarekt (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- module:Wikidata4Bio? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, this edit should have fixed that. The tricky thing is that the function is used in the Infobox, Template:VN, and Template:Taxonavigation, which was confusing my attempt to debug it. Category uses are going down again now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- module:Wikidata4Bio? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- However I still have no idea where is this category added. --Jarekt (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Not a defining category. We do not generally split like this, we should not start splitting like this, and we have two perfectly adequate category trees for both the Kurpark and for monochrome photos (or glass plates, lantern slides or whatever is significant and relevant). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- A separate category for these pictures seems for me to be necessary to get these special pictures connected to Category:Kurpark Bad Mergentheim - named whatever. They are a special group of pictures there. They are a subset of pictures in subcategories of Category:Photographs by Willem van de Poll in Bad Mergentheim. It is required to keep these pictures as a branch in the category tree of Category:Kurpark Bad Mergentheim. The name of the category, however, is not important. - You may rename it in an appropriate way, if you like that. HubiB (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- I see no reason for this category to exist at all. They are not a significant group.
- I don't understand your later point: do you think we need a category for van de Poll's photos of the Kurpark, as a subset of his Bad Mergentheim photos? There are about 200 of Bad Mergentheim, across three visits through the years, and about half of these are of the Kurpark. I've not seen reason to split these before, but we certainly could do.
- As it is though, we already have the categorisation to identify what we're after: [1]
- If this category is about vdP rather than B&W photography, it certainly needs a rename. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe I am misunderstanding. From my view categories are not only made for storing pictures, but in opposite primarily made to find stored pictures. I know from "normal" users, that Wikimedia Commons is a good source, but also a big black hole of lost images. From this view a category is significant when it is an adequate help for „normal, mouse clicking“ users to get to desired picture(s) in the impenetrable amount of images. Kurpark (spa gardens) is the most known place in Bad Mergentheim. This means special interest from visitors for this place. The number of existing pictures indicate that. B&W was not chosen for the category name because of contents of the pictures. Therefore also time could have been used. However, how do you name commonly when mixed from 1950ies and 1960ies? I have no idea about what to chose. Maybe you have a better idea, how users can find these pictures. By the way, I know Bad Mergentheim well and georeferenced many images, but discovered these images only by chance, after they were stored more than a year before. My opinion in short: If you think categories are made for authors or administrators to store and not for users to find images, you can delete the category. If you think categories are for users, it should be kept and - if required - renamed. HubiB (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yet again, this category is pointless. We already had Category:Kurpark Bad Mergentheim, we do not need a category specifically for monochrome pictures of it, nor is that our regular practice. So delete this and upmerge it there.
- We might keep a category by year, if that was interesting (I see no reason to do so, but I wouldn't oppose it). We already have something of that nature, because the Willem van de Poll categories already do that for 1953, 1955, 1960. Other than those, we don't even have any other monochrome images. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Again, I hope it's not too hard to understand. Categories are not only provided to store pictures, but primarily to find stored pictures. Explan me: How does a user who does not know the artist find this group of historical pictures, when they are not grouped in a category? If you do not like the name of the category, no problem, use "historical pictures .." or what you like. But removing the category will take away an important orientation for users about pictures of Kurpark Bad Mergentheim. If this category is not appreciated to be required, then you can also remove all other categories, resulting in unstructured garbage inside the Category:Kurpark Bad Mergentheim. HubiB (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- @HubiB and Andy Dingley: Andy is right that we don't subdivide Category:Monochrome photographs by subject. We do have Category:Black and white photographs of Baden-Württemberg and Category:Black and white photographs of Germany by city so we might create Category:Black and white photographs of Bad Mergentheim. If you wish you capture the time period, then Category: Kurpark Bad Mergentheim in the 20th century would make more sense. But I would support deleting this category as it stands. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
stale discussion. Upmerge and delete. We have also the other topical category in Category:Monochrome photographs, namely Category:Interior of Khas Mahal, Agra Fort (monochrome). The latter also to be upmerged and delete--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: See below. It is now correct named (renamed) and combines 2 categories "Black and white photographs" and "Kurpark Bad Mergentheim". (Commons:Categories#Quick_guide) Absolutely no reason for deletion. I understand that it was previously a poorly chosen or inappropriate name (
Category:Monochrome pictures Kurpark Bad Mergentheim).
- There is even an extra main category for such categories --> Category:Black and white photographs of parks. For me, this deletion request, after the category has been renamed to a correct English title and fits into the category-system, is gross nonsense. Keep Triplec85 (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Category:Black and white photographs of Kurpark Bad Mergentheim --- Category:Monochrome pictures Kurpark Bad Mergentheim
[edit] Done @Andy Dingley, Themightyquill, and HubiB:
1. I moved the photographs to Category:Black and white photographs of Kurpark Bad Mergentheim without leaving a redirect (because we we don't subdivide monochrome photographs by subject). So the discussed Category is deleted.
2. To capture the time period i sorted all photographs in the new Category:Kurpark Bad Mergentheim by year (to keep a better overview of the countless images in the long term).
Greets from Tauberbischofsheim (near Bad Mergentheim) Triplec85 (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- So everyone wanted to delete it, so instead you created a whole new one? Tagged for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as Category:Black and white photographs of Kurpark Bad Mergentheim. It is now correct named (renamed) and combines 2 categories "Black and white photographs" and "Kurpark Bad Mergentheim". (Commons:Categories#Quick_guide) Absolutely no reason for deletion. I understand that it was previously a poorly chosen or inappropriate name (
Category:Monochrome pictures Kurpark Bad Mergentheim). But now there is no reason for deletion. - Otherwise you would have to delete tens of thousands of "Black and white photographs" by topic categories. Greets Triplec85 (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is even an extra main category for such categories --> Category:Black and white photographs of parks. For me, this deletion request, after the category has been renamed to a correct English title and fits into the category-system, is gross nonsense. keep -- Triplec85 (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Geoprofi Lars
- Keep The category name fits with existing the systematic - as explaind by Triplec85 - and is also required for the users to find these pictures, one of the main reasons for categories! --HubiB (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- now i created Category:Black and white photographs of parks by country because there are already many such pictures worldwide
- Category:Black and white photographs of parks by country
- Category:Black and white photographs of parks in Finland (some entries already)
- Category:Black and white photographs of parks in Germany (some entries already)
- Category:Black and white photographs of parks in the United States (some entries already, like Category:Black and white photographs of Central Park ;-)
- ...
- Category:Black and white photographs of parks by country
- Greets Triplec85 (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Are you now planning to go through the whole of Commons and split every category into colour vs. black & white? Do you not see how useless (and indeed, counter-productive) that would be?
- Subject and medium are orthogonal. We can use categorization for either or both of these, but if we start to require the intersections between two separate dimensions like this, we vastly increase the number of categories, and we make categorization difficult to navigate as we split related content apart. It's not too bad at very high levels like "black and white photographs of parks" or even "in Germany", but this category is going right down to the level of individual small-town parks. How many similar categories would that be, for every park in Germany?! Andy Dingley (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is quite common to create new categories when it makes sense in some way. You're right, you shouldn't do that in every case (every case = every park). Usually it doesn't happen either. Unfortunately, we have not defined in our rules when something makes sense. That would be hard, too. There are categories that are worth creating for a single image. Others maybe only when you have a dozen pictures. In this case here, however, there are clearly enough images for a separate category. We have enough existing samples: Category:Black and white photographs of Tilden Regional Park, Category:Black and white photographs of Linnanmäki, Category:Black and white photographs of Kaisaniemi park, Category:Black and white photographs of the Sydney Opera House, Category:Black and white photographs of the Empire State Building …. --XRay 💬 10:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- now i created Category:Black and white photographs of parks by country because there are already many such pictures worldwide
- Keep W-R-Hesse-Fotos (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Scheme is typical and content exists. Why delete? --XRay 💬 08:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Fits in Category:Black and white photographs of parks, no reason for deletation discoverable. --Zollernalb (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason to remove the category. Makes sense in my opinion. --Laserlicht (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per XRay and Zollernalb. --Aristeas (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep anro (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Kept per discussion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Discussions for the following categories have been merged into this discussion:
This is a single item category. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category or categories. FredWalsh (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The "parent category" is Category:Sunny Leone by year, which has maybe a dozen other years, all with multiple files. This is one of a set. --GRuban (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- The "set" argument is not very strong. This category currently exists solely for File:Sunny Leone r140014.png which has the Flickr account of InternetAdultFilmDatabase as author. The next category by year is Category:Sunny Leone in 2005 which is mostly filled with photos of the model by Luke Ford. His photos of her are also found in subsequent categories for 2006, 2007 and 2008 etc. There are also photos of her by Glenn Francis in 2009 and subsequent years or by BollywoodHungama. Those photos are very arguably parts of sets.
File:Sunny Leone r140014.pngis not part of any set other than Category:Sunny Leone and Category:AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2002.Why cannot the file go into the higher categories like Category:Sunny Leone? -FredWalsh (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)- Fred, what I believe that GRuban is trying to say, is that the nominated category is part of a set of "Sunny Leone in 20XX"-categories. If we put the file in the parent-category, the parent-category will be the trashcan for the orphaned files. That would look sloppy. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- I understood exactly what GRuban was saying. I question the logic of a category for just one file. It sounds more like a cosmetic argument rather than a logical one e.g. we shouldn’t move the file up one category because it wouldn’t look pretty and neat. It defeats the whole purpose of categories i.e. to group related pages. There is nothing wrong with a file moving to a parent category where necessary. If there was at least one other file to go into the category, I would withdraw the nomination. FredWalsh (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Fred, what I believe that GRuban is trying to say, is that the nominated category is part of a set of "Sunny Leone in 20XX"-categories. If we put the file in the parent-category, the parent-category will be the trashcan for the orphaned files. That would look sloppy. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- The "set" argument is not very strong. This category currently exists solely for File:Sunny Leone r140014.png which has the Flickr account of InternetAdultFilmDatabase as author. The next category by year is Category:Sunny Leone in 2005 which is mostly filled with photos of the model by Luke Ford. His photos of her are also found in subsequent categories for 2006, 2007 and 2008 etc. There are also photos of her by Glenn Francis in 2009 and subsequent years or by BollywoodHungama. Those photos are very arguably parts of sets.
- "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media".
The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. This category does not have two or more files. If we find a second file to go here, there is no objection to recreating the category. All you would have to do is ask the administrator to undelete the category. FredWalsh (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not only, actually. If that were the case then there would be no reason to make a category for a person to hold a single image of a person, and yet, hopefully you will recognize that is usually done and very useful? Categories are also used to organize our content and help people find images, by navigating the category tree. The page you quote, in Commons:Categories#Categorization_tips specifically says "The categories (or galleries) you choose for your uploads should answer as many as possible of the following questions: what? / whom?: ...where?: ... when?: when did the depicted events happen, or when was the image created? ...who?: ...how?:... " I've bolded the relevant part here, it is specifically answering one of these questions that we are supposed to answer. It allows someone who is looking for a picture of the actress from a specific year find such a picture more easily. Keeping the category also allows navigating to find this image from Category:Actresses by year tree. In short, it's useful. It's not the most useful thing in the world, but it's worth keeping the work that User:Tabercil did in 2013 to create the category and organize the images this way. Removing it would remove that slight benefit, and would, slightly, damage the commons. Keep. --GRuban (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with GRuban. Can we close all these discussions now?Jeff5102 (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- "If that were the case then there would be no reason to make a category for a person to hold a single image of a person..." Why would it not be possible to put the photo in Category:Sunny Leone and Category:AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2002 for example.
- If "someone who is looking for a picture of the actress from a specific year", why would they not find the photo through a normal search? That search brings up this photo as the first item in the search results. This would happen without the category playing any part. FredWalsh (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with GRuban. Can we close all these discussions now?Jeff5102 (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
are there any further developments or essential news with these one-member categories, which are part of "Foo person by year" scheme? Calling @FredWalsh, GRuban, and Jeff5102: --Estopedist1 (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't believe so. If I remember well, the question was if the plurals in the text "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media" were intended as an implicit ban on single-file categories. I would say that assumption is a legalistic yet far-fetched interpretation of that sentence, but that is me. If a discussion concerning that topic was heldon a policy-page, then I was not invited to it. Anyway, the discussion on this page stranded in a two-against-one stalemate, without consensus. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: this and others can be closed. I tried my best to raise this discrepancy, faced general opposition but I’m past caring about it. FredWalsh (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Fred! We recognize you were trying to help. --GRuban (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: this and others can be closed. I tried my best to raise this discrepancy, faced general opposition but I’m past caring about it. FredWalsh (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
It is possible that per Commons:Category_inclusion_criteria (section "General critera", number 4) we should keep these 1-3-member <Foo person/event by year> categories. Useful info may be found also in this CFD Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Liam Wyatt by year, where eg user:Mike Peel thinks that <by year>-categorizing is not rational even if we have 140+ files about Foo person--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete this and all the 'by year' categories - just merge them back to the main category, where the files can be found and browsed a lot easier than with this system. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per Wikimedia Commons pratices and this categories, if were deleted, would obviously be recreated in the future. Tm (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- logs of cat:Mia Khalifa show how frustrating and unnecessary it is to press for deletion of categories that can be reasonably soon populated. in oct 2019 four youtube videos of Mia Khalifa were made cc-by, and so the cat could easily be filled with multiple files.
- it's fairly easy to obtain free files for living persons and contemporary events.
- as such, i suggest, if a category is expected to receive free files reasonably easily, and the category corresponds to pages on other wiki projects, such a category should be allowed to exist, even if there are zero files in it.--RZuo (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep as all others. A lot of users do find value in the category-by-year-structure. All files should be in this structure, regardless of the number. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 14:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep Agree fully with the arguments of Triplec85 and GRuban --XxakixX (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are some commons contributor who argue for the deletion of images that are clearly in scope, on the grounds that more recently uploaded images are superior to the earlier images. I've always thought that the best way to manage a topic that has a lot of images is to organize them. In particular, organize one or more hierarchies of subcategories. Subcategories by year are a perfectly fine way to organize images. Geo Swan (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Closed, kept; per discussion -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)