Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2022/12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I accidentally created this category using the wrong naming convention - articles are now in Category:Mount Gibraltar, New South Wales Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: Deleted per nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

It needs to be deleted (empty category) Amitchell125 (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125: I've added {{Empty page}} to get it deleted. That's often a better option than CFD when discussion isn't needed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: . —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

the major event that leads to the division of the samoan islands,the annexation of tutuila, manual to the U.S... and the shift from naval administration to the department of interior 67.218.61.170 15:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: Nothing to do. Feel free to discuss it at en:Talk:History of American Samoa. --Achim55 (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This category seems to be a duplicate of Category:FS 211. ZandDev (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Close: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

empty to delete Celest (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Delete - classes were confused. Hullian111 (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Delete Category:BDE class London buses on route 46
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Delete - classes were confused. Hullian111 (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Delete Category:BDE class London buses in Metroline Mk4 white CD strapline electric cleaner air mark livery
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Delete per replacement electric cleaner air mark category. Hullian111 (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Delete Category:Ee class London buses in London General Mk3 TfL roundel hybrid mark livery
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Delete per new electric cleaner air mark replacement category. Hullian111 (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Delete Category:EP class London buses in London Central Mk3 TfL roundel livery
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Delete per replacement electric cleaner air mark category. Hullian111 (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Delete Category:BCE class London buses in London United Mk4 TfL roundel livery
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

To remove road number as not usual to use in street names. Move to Category:Clough Road, Kingston upon Hull. Keith D (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Merge Category:A1165 (Clough Road), Kingston upon Hull into Category:Clough Road, Kingston upon Hull
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I improperly created this today. I fixed it as Category:Music venues in Charlottesville, Virginia Bluerasberry (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Speedy delete of Category:Music venues in Charlottesville
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This category doesn't seem to make any sense. There is no Solovki by year and it looks from Category:Solovki that this is an archipelago and it seems odd to organize images by archipelago by month and year. I suggest we upmerge these three images to Category:2006 in Arkhangelsk Oblast (the oblast level) and Category:June 2006 in Russia. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem for me. И. Максим (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Delete Category:June 2006 in Solovki
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

unfortunately, much of these photos can be found on getty images, which constitutes immediate deletion. 100cellsman 10:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you give a work a free license, you don't give up your copyright. You tell people the work can be used under that license. If people want to use the work in a way that doesn't comply with the license (not attribute or not mention the license) then they can negotiate a fee with you to get you to agree a commercial license agreement. These are not incompatible things. Vera (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess when it comes to these outcomes, I haven't quite grasped licensing and copyrights yet.100cellsman 12:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The vast majority of the photos have a credit in flickr, in the description and in exif as something like Photo by [name of the photographer]/Web Summit via Sportsfile, so copyright belong to the Web Summit, not Gety Images, a well known copyfraud practione, even apropriating and slapping false copyright info to photos taken by a photographer and released by it to the public domain and then suing for copyright violation the same photographers that took said photos Tm (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus No consensus
Actionsnone
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

incorrect name, the creator wants to delete it. 源義信 (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Speedy delete of Category:Documents of Embassy of the Republic of Vietnam in Taipei
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Made a very stupid typo Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Speedy delete of Category:Parks in Brennan Park, Wollstonecraft
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

made a very stupid typo Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Speedy delete of Category:Parks in Wollstonecraft, New South Park
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I accidentally created what looks like a new suburb category... sorry. Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Redundant naming - Ashfield Park is in Ashfield Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Misread Joynton as Johnson Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

definitely the wrong spelling - needs an extra "h" Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Definitely the wrong spelling - there is meant to be an extra "h" Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Should be Category:Historical images of parks in Australia Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

typo (Blacktown) Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

no such suburb Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

empty category, unlikely to be populated. Lilekely created as vandalism by LTA vandal Angelmunoz50 to further spread their vandalism in wikidata. Sjö (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

made a typo Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

no longer needed Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

typo in name Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

No such park, I accidentally meant to create Francis Lake, West Hoxton Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Chris.sherlock2: I notice you have a number of these. In cases where you accidently create a category, if it is empty, you can simply add {{SD|C2}} or {{Bad name}} to get them speedy deleted without needing a CfD for each one. Of course, if you think there may be any objection to a given deletion, do not hesitate to start a CfD. Thanks! Josh (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Speedy delete of Category:Francis Park, West Hoxton
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Completely unneeded category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: speedily. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Completely unnecessary category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: speedily. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

typo in name Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: speedily. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

typo in the name Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: speedily. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

this is the wrong spelling of Blayney Shire Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: speedily. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This is a spelling error of "Connanmble" Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: speedily. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Typo in name Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: speedily. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

No s in park name Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

No s in name Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I got the suburb wrong for this park Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

There is only one winning team in every FIFA World Cup, no navigating function. The data is already included at the Wikidata Infobox, therefore I don't think this category is necessary A1Cafel (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


@A1Cafel: Subsumed into Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Winners of the 2010 FIFA World Cup as it is essentially the same issue.

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

There is only one winning team in every FIFA World Cup, no navigating function. The data is already included at the Wikidata Infobox, therefore I don't think this category is necessary A1Cafel (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


@A1Cafel: Subsumed into Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Winners of the 2010 FIFA World Cup as it is essentially the same issue.

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Empty category, unlikely to be filled with content Sjö (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete See en:Murder of Asunta Basterra. Notable case, but we're unlikely to see any free content suitable for Commons to use. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete as empty. Josh (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: . —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

An empty category created by a vandalism-only Ip address, could be replaced by Category:Clothing of Germany, only content in it is abuse. 源義信 (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

An empty category created by a vandalism-only Ip address, could be replaced by Category:Books from China, only content in it is abuse. 源義信 (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Empty category created by vandalism-only IP address to send abuse (see history). Plus, the name should be Category:Newspapers of Mongolia, like other categories under Category:Newspapers by country 源義信 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Empty cateogyr created by vandalism-only IP address, only content is abuse. Should be replaced by Category:Letters of Laos. 源義信 (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@源義信: I'm fine with deleting this empty cat, but shouldn't the correct category be the existing Category:Lao letters? Josh (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lao letters is a cetegory for Lao script, and Letters of Laos should be a category for letters (written messages). That doesn't matter because there is no letters of Laos yet and the category is just created for abusing. 源義信 (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Empty cat created by a vandalism-only IP address. 源義信 (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Empty cat created by a vandalism-only IP address. 源義信 (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Wrong spelling Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy deleted by Yann--A1Cafel (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

please delete Carl Ha (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Should be merged with Category:Wu Chung A1Cafel (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This should be renamed to Category:Relations of the Soviet Union and the United States in 1971 as this is related to the Soviet Union and not Russia itself. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --Butko (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Empty category. Jarash (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

No justification for this category given only one image exists here and even if there were more the sport variant model isn't notable enough for a seperate category, I originally CSD'd this and moved the image but Mdaniels5757 reverted so I'd like to see their reasoning for keeping this. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy deletion because the "category was "category was recently unconsensually emptied" (COM:CSD#C2)"; I have no position on whether the category should be kept or not. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdaniels5757 Indeed it was and had you bothered to open your eyes you would've seen I openly stated in the CSD rationale "empty - only one image existed here and the Sport model isn't notable enough to warrant a seperate cat"[1],
If you have no position on whether it should stay or go then why the hell decline the speedy ?, I openly stated I had moved the Transit Sport to the Transit category so why the hell decline in and then not fucking care whether it stays or goes ?. Christ. –Davey2010Talk 01:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted for being an empty category - Generally speaking we don't keep categories unless they have more than 5 images in them, Sadly the Sport model isn't notable enough for a separate category and the file itself (title, desc) states it's a Sport variant so no one's missing out by this cat being deleted. I still don't understand why the category was ever csd-declined and then decliner comes here to say they have no position on whether it should stay or go .... none of that makes any sense to me but I guess it never will. Category has been re-deleted anyway. –Davey2010Talk 12:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Proposed merging to Category:Vaginal lubrication A1Cafel (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Delete category - mistaken assumption that one or two of this class of buses had TfL roundels. Hullian111 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

There are no files of this individual in this category and it doesn't appear to have been touched in years Snickers2686 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete as empty. Josh (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: already. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

What is the difference between "Open air" and Category:Outside? When, in what situations, for what kind of files, do you use "open air" and when "outside"? Can clear definitions be added AND/OR can both categories be merged? JopkeB (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Merge Category:Open air into Category:Outside No appreciable difference beyond terminology. Josh (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Josh, for your reaction. But, in spite of the Universality principle, can some/all(?) subcategories stay as they are because they are commonly used terms, like Category:Painting en plein air and most of the subcategories of Category:Open air facilities? JopkeB (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: Yes, for each sub-topic, the term most appropriate for that topic can be used (between 'outside', 'open air', or 'outdoor') I should think. Josh (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now we can move forward. I'll wait another two weeks and then, when there are no other opinions, I'll make the changes. I'll move the files and subcategories of Category:Open air to Category:Outside and make a redirect. I will not rename the subcategories because I assume that they already have the term most appropriate. JopkeB (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no appreciable difference between "Open air" and "Outside". Category:Open air has been merged into Category:Outside and has got a redirect. The subcategories have kept their names ('outside', 'open air', 'outdoor') because they are commonly used terms.
✓ Done

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

What is this category about? What is the definition? Though it is a main category, I do not see a Wikidata infobox (many meanings) and in EN-WP there is only a disambiguation page, so it can mean many things. JopkeB (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make this a disambiguation category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reaction. This is what I am going to do. JopkeB (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is not one unambiguous definition for all the different kind of subcategies. The solution is to make a disambiguation page of this category. --JopkeB (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


JopkeB (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

As probably the majority - or at least a very large part - of deletion requests on Commons are related to copyright, I question the usefulness of this category, created in 2017. The currently 43 DR pages directly in this category, out of potentially many tens of thousands, or 38 in Category:Copyright deletion requests/deleted, and the nine(!) in Category:Copyright deletion requests/kept, seem arbitrary. As the more specific subcategories, particularly Category:Copyright deletion requests by artist, seem more useful, I think a solution could be to make this a {{CatCat}} and remove it from all DR pages that don't pertain to a more specific subcategory; also remove the generic "deleted" and "kept" categories there. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestumblindi I have already started Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Licensing-related deletion requests, where I claimed that both this category and its parent category Licensing-related deletion requests are poorly defined. Can we merge these discussions? Brianjd (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No opposition from me; if you want to merge this discussion into the one started by you, feel free to go ahead. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gestumblindi It is interesting that every DR page in the ‘/kept’ subcategory and most DR pages in the ‘/deleted’ subcategory has been visited by me (as shown by the way my browser formats the links). It is likely that most, if not all, of those DR pages were added to those categories by me too. I know that I have been adding many DR pages to Copyright deletion requests, then moving them to the appropriate subcategory when they are closed. Brianjd (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merged into Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Licensing-related deletion requests. Brianjd (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Why does this category not have a name in English? What is the difference with Category:Cookie moulds? Can the files in this category be moved to Category:Cookie moulds and can this category get a redirect? JopkeB (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because baked goods made with a koekplank are not cookies. If you find an English equivalent then it could be merged to that one. Jane023 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jane023: If koekplanken are not cookie moulds, they should be removed from Category:Cookie moulds, no? Josh (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would Category:Gingerbread moulds be better? And are all the current photos in Category:Koekplanken from the Netherlands? Then we could keep them together in for instance Category:Gingerbread moulds in the Netherlands (or "of the Netherlands"). JopkeB (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes to either- since gingerbread is not really related to the taai-taai that is most commonly associated with this baking tool, a redirect will be needed if koekplank is removed from the name. I am only on mobile so can’t fix this for you. Jane023 (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category can be renamed to Category:Gingerbread moulds in the Netherlands and will get a redirect. --JopkeB (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Rename this category to Category:Inauguration portraits of monarchs of the Netherlands. Reason: there is no coronation in the Netherlands, only inaugurations. After that give a redirect from Category:Coronations in the Netherlands to Category:Inaugurations of monarchs of the Netherlands, and make that a main category. JopkeB (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


There were no objections, so this category has been renamed to Category:Inauguration portraits of monarchs of the Netherlands, because there are no coronations in the Netherlands, only inaugurations.

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

What is this category about? What would be the description or definition? Why sould this category be on Commons, what is the reason it exists? Can it be deleted? JopkeB (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Interesting unuseful for Commons as it is too subjective and unquantifiable. "Showing interest" may have some merit as an action, but not the mere quality of "interesting". Josh (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category can be deleted.

--JopkeB (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Empty category, new category established Ssu (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @Ssu: What is the correct/new category name? Josh (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The category is at Category:Ose, Bygland, so Category:Ose (Bygland) may be deleted. Ssu (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssu: you created both cats. tag it with {{Badname}} by yourself. RZuo (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

We have Category:Octasulfur and Category:Cyclooctasulfur, but there is no content related to "octasulfur" that is not the cyclic one. Therefore, I propose to merge these categories. DMacks (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently 'Cyclooctasulfur' is subcat of 'Octasulfur', 'Octasulfur' is linked to the wikidata item, and the majority of wikipedia sites have their article about this substance do not have 'cyclo' in their page-title, so upmerging is probably easier. DMacks (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, go ahead. --Ben (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merged into Category:Octasulfur. I simply redirected the empty category to the one in use. (non-admin closure) Marbletan (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This category seems to have been emptied by its creator (Trade), with its pages being moved to the parent category, for no apparent reason. Brianjd (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving pending DRs back into this category, where they should have been all along. Brianjd (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because i forgot whether or not we are supposed to use /pending categories for deletion requests. You could just have asked if you wanted to know Trade (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Counting helicopters in a photo doesn't seem to be useful, particularly since unsurprisingly most of those categorised here only include one helicopter. Mike Peel (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The 'usefulness' of 'by quantity' categories has been oft-discussed before with the general consensus being that they warrant retention. The crux is essentially that 'seeming unuseful' to some users does not really indicate actual uselessness to the wider userbase--in fact it can be argued that their very existence indicates at least some users finding utility in the concept. There also is no particular threshold of how many different quantities are needed to be retained. Helicopters are a discrete (countable) entity and have no technical reason why 'by quantity' would not apply to them as much as for any other discrete entity. Thus, unless the broader concept of 'by quantity' categories is done away with, I see no reason to single out this particular subject matter for deletion. Josh (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Could you perhaps link to some of the discussions you are referring to, please? And also justify why this particular case is useful, since it currently contains very few files? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: That's a good question and fair request. I'm travelling currently so I'm not able to do a comprehensive list of times this has come up but you can start with the discussions below for some background context on this issue:
  1. Category talk:Groups
  2. Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Symbols by quantity
  3. Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01/Category:One food
  4. Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Animals by quantity
  5. Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:1 animal
This list is hardly exhaustive, and they cover a lot of issues beyond those you raise, but the theme is clear that 'by quantity' categories warrant retention if they are used, and with around 180 images already in the Category:Helicopters by quantity tree, it is clearly in use. The burden is to demonstrate why specifically helicopters should be prohibited for being categorized 'by quantity' and the rationale that there are only 180 images in 5 sub-categories and that most of the images are in one of those sub-categories is not sufficient to warrant prohibiting this categorization scheme, especially when it is easy to see there are 1000s more images which this can be applied to over time. Josh (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Thanks for the links. The issue is that the tree is currently really only used by 37 images, since a single helicopter might be considered to be the default - and this is after about 7 years, at least for Category:2 helicopters. I can't see a plan for populating the categories beyond that? If usage is increased, then I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @Mike Peel: In your opinion, how many images should a tree have to justify retention? Josh (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: For a specific category like this? I'd be looking at 50-100 at least. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: 50+ not counting the most populated sub-category, I presume? (otherwise it would currently meet your threshold) Josh (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Yes, not counting '1 helicopter' - since that category is particularly not useful, and maybe is a default assumption. I'm fairly sure I've uploaded more photographs than that containing just 1 helicopter! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: Sure, well I have added a few more files so perhaps we can close this CfD at this point? Josh (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's up to 40 excluding the 1-helecopter case? I'm still really not convinced it's worthwhile. Let's see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: It has been a month with no new comments. Can we close this CfD at this point? You can always open again if something new comes up. Josh (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus No consensus
Actionsnone
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment At time of closure, well over 400 images were categorized in this tree across 8 sub-categories, including more than 70 in categories for 2 or more helicopters. Josh (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
see also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Panoramic views of Kyiv, Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/03/Category:Panorama buildings and Category talk:Panoramas

Rename category to Category:Panoramas by country to match parent Category:Panoramas in compliance with the Universality Principle. Note that Category:Panoramics is a redirect to Category:Panoramas. This name change would apply to subcategories as well. Josh (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner, LBM1948, Ham II, Takeaway, Auntof6, Themightyquill, Xeror, Simisa, Sitacuisses, and Bubba73: Please notice some ambiguity in the naming and use of categories from this categorization branch. Many users use those categories in the broader sense of the word "panorama": as an umberella term for landscape and cityscaape outlooks, open views from mountains, towers or bridges, open remote or global views of cities, structures or landforms etc., as the equivalent of this word is understood in many languages. Another users try to promote the narrow terminological sense as a category for wide-angle images (from what angle? how to measure it?), or for narrow wide images (from what aspect ratio?), independently of their subject. In an effort to promote one of these concepts, users often distort the categorization in the other meaning, and vice versa. The solution would be to split this categorization tree into two with unambiguous, unmistakable names. The proposed renaming perhaps slightly shifts the meaning of the name (in the direction from that special meaning to the more general one - a panorama for the view itself, a panoramic for the picture) without solving the necessity of division. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the division cannot be done quickly and once, but it would be a very long-term process that will probably never be utterly completed. Rather, it is about setting the direction in which the development of categorization should gradually move. Thus, it is necessary to take into account the fact that in some parts of the categorization tree one meaning prevails, in other parts the other meaning prevails, in some both meanings are mixed together.
Btw., I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't dare to judge whether the dictionaries (mentioned in the sister discussion) can keep up with the development and nuances of English. This is a question of the linguistic approach, whether to measure the quality of language according to dictionaries, or the quality of dictionaries according to how well and accurately they describe the language. Linguistics knows the concept of language productivity, i.e. that language is not a closed set of signs and utterances, but allows creating new forms and new utterances according to semantic and grammatical rules, for example on the principle of analogy. The fact that the substantive form of the adjective is not captured in some dictionaries does not necessarily mean that it does not exist in the language or that it is incorrect. It can be a neologism, an occasionalism or a technical term from a field that the given dictionary does not deal with in detail. A noun formed as a substantive adjective can have a different form and meaning than the noun from which the adjective was formed. Substantiating an adjective through the process of dropping a noun from the phrase is probably also a phenomenon that occurs also in English. --ŠJů (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter what the native language of each user is, because "panorama" and its derivatives come from Greek and there are many Indo-European languages in which it means exactly the same thing. Effectively, Panorama is a noun and panoramic an adjective, so they can and should coexist.
The first one reflects the substantive content of the photo (general view, overview, etc.). The second reflects a formal feature of the image. There may be panoramic photos that are not panoramas, such as panoramics of trees or cloisters.
On the other hand, there are thousands of panoramas that are not panoramic, in the photographic sense of the word, which is the one that must prevail in an image repository.
In analog times panoramic photos were taken with special cameras (usually with a rotating lens). Nowadays they are achieved by merging two or more image files using the appropriate software.
Summing up: I do not agree with renaming, neither in the short nor in the long term. LBM1948 (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @LBM1948: Would you classify the contents of Category:Panoramics by country as "panoramas" or "panoramics"? (I am asking about the actual contents, not the name.) Josh (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it was already decided in Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/02/Category:Panoramics to adopt
panoramas
panoramic photographs
panoramic paintings
panoramic videosŠJů
...
and most cats currently present will be moved to "panoramic photographs of ...".
if you have nothing new to say, then there's nothing to discuss. RZuo (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: You are correct that the existing consensus is to use "panoramas" and sub-divide by type of media with "panoramic" as an adjective for "panoramic photographs", etc. I do not see a consensus here to overturn that prior resolution, so I think we can go forward with conforming to the original consensus, no? Josh (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes.
just to clarify something. i said "most cats currently present will be moved to "panoramic photographs of ..."" because many of them really just contain photos. but for some countries which have a lot more content and already contain videos paintings etc., the layer "panoramas" becomes necessary. ofc nothing against building the "panoramas of <country>" layer for every country now.
i didnt finish moving the tree because i wanted to build a new automated tool first: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Idea_Lab&oldid=725540609#Script_/_supervised_bot_to_help_cfd . also some moves require sysop right to overwrite existing junk pages. it's too tedious to do this mechanical job manually. i aim to get the tool ready by the end of this year. for now i think it's ok to leave it like this temporarily. it's not the most urgent thing or the worst maintenance problem. RZuo (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved by consensus
Actions Rename Category:Panoramics by country to Category:Panoramas by country
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Execution of action can wait on a tool or can be done manually in the meantime at users' discretion.
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Delete or redirect to Category:Chunshuitang? Another Believer (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i think you can answer your own question? RZuo (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Merge Category:Chunshuitang into Category:Chun Shui Tang @Another Believer and RZuo: This is how the company styles its name in Latin characters per its own website ([2]). Josh (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved by consensus
Actions Merge Category:Chunshuitang into Category:Chun Shui Tang
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

all sorts of problems:

  1. singular title.
  2. bizarre, unrealistic categorisation, e.g. History of the Mediterranean -> Cradle of civilization -> China.

until these problems are resolved, this cat is removed from china. RZuo (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete @RZuo: This category might work as a concept on enwiki, but not for Commons. Here it just serves as another title to subjectively assign to the various main cats that are categorized here, which serves no purpose in sorting and locating files in our repository. In essence, it is a statement solely about the namesakes of the categories beneath it but irrelevant to the actual files contained deeper within, which makes it inappropriate as a topical category. Josh (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Delete Category:Cradle of civilization
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

It seems the duration of war in Afghanistan is inconsistent. Actually should be from 2001 to 2021 (Second phase should also be included until US withdrawal) A1Cafel (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Merge Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) by subject into Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) Sub-topics of the main topic belong directly under the main topic. Josh (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Merge Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) by subject into Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I think this should be merged into Category:Beijing by month but I'm listing both together here. Two are here while ten are there. Category:Months in China by city does not exist but Category:Cities in China by month has (a) Category:Months in Hong Kong (not the terrible Category:Hong Kong by month) and (b) the terrible Category:Shanghai by month which has no mirror Category:Months in Shanghai. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support

Merge Category:Months in Beijing into Category:Beijing by month and also Rename Category:Months in Hong Kong to Category:Hong Kong by month by the same logic. Josh (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Merge Category:Months in Beijing into Category:Beijing by month
Rename Category:Months in Hong Kong to Category:Hong Kong by month
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Other than the Civil War, there is no time where there would be more than one President of the United States so Presidents of the United States by year is inaccurate. This category is really former or future Presidents of the United States by year which seems like an unnecessary categorization. I don't think we would need former models, former actors or other former jobs for people by year. If people are going by the person, that works horizontally. The individual presidents are still in the Category:Presidents of the United States by name by year category. I suggest deletion of this category and any current president can be upmerged to the Category:Presidents by year while former presidents can be upmerged to Category:Politicians of the United States by year (as I think they can still be considered politicians). I added the subcategory by adding this to Template:Presidents of the United States year if that's okay. I'll review and notify the individual category creators.Ricky81682 (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Listing all subcategories as well

 Delete--Trade (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support in principle, but in practice it needs to be a bit more nuanced. I completely agree that people should not be categorized under a title by year if they did not hold that title that given year. For example, Category:Gerald Ford in 2005 should under no circumstances be listed under Category:Presidents of the United States in 2005 as he has not been POTUS since 1977. Yes there are years where there are more than one president, so Category:Gerald Ford in 1977 and Category:Jimmy Carter in 1977 could go under Category:Presidents of the United States in 1977 but even then it may still be inaccurate since either may include images of them in 1977, but not when they were POTUS--thus you would really need a Category:Gerald Ford as President of the United States in 1977 to form an accurate intersection. Is this something we really want to do? By any stretch, Category:Ronald Reagan in 1977 does not belong there as it would be several more years before he assumed that office. While I can see how this category tree might work, I am pretty sure it is not worth the trouble for a very marginal gain, so I support removal of the contents, but would retain the category names as redirects (for years with one president) or dabs (for years with more than one). Josh (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner You accomplish the same thing with putting both Ford and Carter under Category:Presidents in 1977 (which they are) rather than the (roughly) every four years time we have two Presidents. The US doesn't need a separate category for these oddball situations. This one is currently very bizarre. The first category, Category:Presidents of the United States in 1865, is not Lincoln who was the US President but Category:Theodore Roosevelt in 1865 because he became president 36 years later. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: I'm not even a fan of Category:Presidents in 1977 being used that way, but that's at least got a broader scope so I don't think we need to include that here. I just don't see any reason to retain any of the "Presidents of the United States in year" as content categories. I do want to retain the redirects for two reasons: 1) People who might look for that name will get automatically redirected, and 2) it will deter the next well-meaning editor from simply recreating them and restarting the same cycle of misuse. Josh (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved by consensus
ActionsTrade
Participants
Closed by Delete Category:Presidents of the United States by year and listed subcategories
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Can someone please change the name of this category to "Category:East German gymnastics championships 1982" (with a captial "G)? Thanks in advance. 109.79.16.246 00:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I´d rather rename this and all those below to "GDR gymnastics championships (year)" as it is closer to the original name "DDR-Meisterschaften" ("East Germany" is a colloquial and somehow inexact name for the German Democratic Republic, which was a state of its own, not just a region of Germany). --Rudolph Buch (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:East german gymnastics championships 1982 to Category:1982 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics - English version of DDR-Meisterschaften im Turnen and avoids abbreviation. Josh (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rudolph Buch: any objection to Category:1982 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics as the name? Josh (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine for me, thanks for asking. Rudolph Buch (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Rename Category:East german gymnastics championships 1982 to Category:1982 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Can someone please change the name of this category to "Category:East German gymnastics championships 1979" (with a captial "G)? Thanks in advance. 109.79.16.246 00:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:East german gymnastics championships 1979 to Category:1979 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics - English version of DDR-Meisterschaften im Turnen and avoids abbreviation. Josh (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Rename Category:East german gymnastics championships 1979 to Category:1979 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Can someone please change the name of this category to "Category:East German gymnastics championships 1955" (with a captial "G)? Thanks in advance. 109.79.16.246 00:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:East german gymnastics championships 1955 to Category:1955 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics - English version of DDR-Meisterschaften im Turnen and avoids abbreviation. Josh (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Rename Category:East german gymnastics championships 1955 to Category:1955 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Can someone please change the name of this category to "Category:East German gymnastics championships 1956" (with a captial "G)? Thanks in advance. 109.79.16.246 00:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:East german gymnastics championships 1956 to Category:1956 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics - English version of DDR-Meisterschaften im Turnen and avoids abbreviation. Josh (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Rename Category:East german gymnastics championships 1956 to Category:1956 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Can someone please change the name of this category to "Category:East German gymnastics championships 1965" (with a captial "G)? Thanks in advance. 109.79.16.246 00:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:East german gymnastics championships 1965 to Category:1965 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics - English version of DDR-Meisterschaften im Turnen and avoids abbreviation. Josh (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Rename Category:East german gymnastics championships 1965 to Category:1965 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Can someone please change the name of this category to "Category:East German gymnastics championships 1970" (with a captial "G)? Thanks in advance. 109.79.16.246 00:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:East german gymnastics championships 1970 to Category:1970 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics - English version of DDR-Meisterschaften im Turnen and avoids abbreviation. Josh (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Rename Category:East german gymnastics championships 1970 to Category:1970 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Can someone please change the name of this category to "Category:East German gymnastics championships 1972" (with a captial "G)? Thanks in advance. 109.79.16.246 00:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:East german gymnastics championships 1972 to Category:1972 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics - English version of DDR-Meisterschaften im Turnen and avoids abbreviation. Josh (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Rename Category:East german gymnastics championships 1972 to Category:1972 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Can someone please change the name of this category to "Category:East German gymnastics championships 1980" (with a captial "G)? Thanks in advance. 109.79.16.246 00:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:East german gymnastics championships 1980 to Category:1980 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics - English version of DDR-Meisterschaften im Turnen and avoids abbreviation. Josh (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Rename Category:East german gymnastics championships 1980 to Category:1980 German Democratic Republic Championships in Gymnastics
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This was a misnamr - there is no Holy Spirit Catholic High School in Carnes Hill. Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. No reason to retain incorrect name as a redirect. Josh (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Delete Category:Holy Spirit Catholic High School, Carnes Hill
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The above is a list of sub-categories of Category:Female clothing by color and Category:Male clothing by color which need renaming. As a former military supply worker, I am a bit nostalgic for the use of commas in these, but it is a violation of the Universality Principle as normal topical category names should be named as they would normally be said in conversational English. There are also a few where the color word needs to be matched with the parent color category name. Josh (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to me the proposed format (colour-gender-noun) sounds more right than the other way around, but i'm no native speaker. Category:Female shoes by color someone created cats in the other order. RZuo (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
makes sense. Jarash (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
ActionsUse "Category:Color gender clothing" format
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

What should be the proper category structure? I would say, based on the word structure, that Transmissions should be the main category, Power transmission should be a subcategory and Mechanical power transmission should be a subcategory of Power transmission. But the last one is the parent of Transmission. So I am confused (not being an expert in technology). Could someone explain this and/or have a better proposal? JopkeB (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @JopkeB: I think the issue is that "Transmissions" are objects, while "power transmission" and "mechanical power transmission" are actions. I believe Category:Transmissions is supposed to specifically be objects that mechanically transmit power, and thus why they are a sub-cat of Category:Mechanical power transmission. Josh (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation, it is enlightening. JopkeB (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @JopkeB: Do you think renaming Category:Transmissions to Category:Mechanical power transmissions (as a sub of the action Category:Mechanical power transmission would help clear this up, or just confuse the issue? I'm pretty sure almost nobody calls them 'mechanical power transmissions' as opposed to just transmissions or gearboxes or such. Maybe just an explanatory hat note on these categories could serve instead? I'm not sure. Josh (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, no renaming, I would stay as close to commonly used words as possible. I think an explanatory hat note will be sufficient. It is just confusing that the word "transmission" has two meanings: an object and a process/action, and that a longer word is a subcategory of a shorter one. But I think with clear definitions/descriptions we might solve that. JopkeB (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I now think there should be two categories:
  1. The existing one Category:Transmissions for the objects that mechanically transmit power (so plural).
  2. Reanimate Category:Transmission for the process/actions (so singular).
Just like, for instance, Category:Drawings and Category:Drawing.
And then the Wikidata items should be adjusted as well. What do you think? JopkeB (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved by consensus
Actions
  1. The existing Category:Transmissions stays for the objects that mechanically transmit power.
  2. Reanimate Category:Transmission for the process of moving energy from its place of generation to a location where it is applied to perform useful work.
Participants
Closed byJopkeB (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @JopkeB: Somehow overlooked your later comments, but I agree with your assessment and action plan. Thanks for going forward with this. Josh (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment About the implementation: No Wikidata items found to be adjusted; changed the description for Transmission to fit better, also for other purposes. --JopkeB (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

created by Mistake Perumalism (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Perumalism: You can simply put {{SD|C2}} for empty category (including those created by you)--A1Cafel (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 14:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

please delete Carl Ha (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: Deleted, typo for Category:Via Ruggero Settimo. --rimshottalk 14:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Name is misspelled, First surname should be Villalta. P. Hughes (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please create the correct category, move the files and use the model "category redirect" F (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Indies1: I have moved the category to the correct name. If there is no other issues, you may close the discussion. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing this - my knowlege of WikiMedia Commons is very basic. I believe to close the discussion all I have to do is remove the statement in the category? P. Hughes (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Kept as a redirect, as it has existed quite a while. --rimshottalk 14:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

equivalent to Category:Prayer trees in Japan ? To be deleted ? Toyotsu (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're far from the same, although I suspect that someone has just pre-emptively emptied this category.
Prayer trees imply an active votive nature. Sacred trees can be far more passive, although under Shinto it's hard to say that any tree would not be sacred. Some rather more than others though. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. I am the creator of the Category:Sacred trees in Japan (I was surprised it did not exist), and then I realized that there was an existing category Category:Prayer trees in Japan. The distinction you proposed makes sense to me; I have started to fill in the category. And I think that we should keep it. Sorry for the confusion. --Toyotsu (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Kept, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 14:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Gordon Brown has not died. This category is unnecessary and in poor taste. GeeJo (t)(c) • 10:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC) 10:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: Deleted, empty as per nom. --rimshottalk 14:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Misnaming of correct category Cheliderpeton. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect orthographic variant to the correctly spelled category.--Kevmin § 13:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Redirect Category:Chelyderpeton to Category:Cheliderpeton per Kevmin (talk · contribs). Josh (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected per above. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Was the wrong suburb, should have been Horningsea Park Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. No reason to retain redirect. Josh (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per above. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

made this by mistake Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @Chris.sherlock2: What was the error? This seems like good content at first look. Josh (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Parks in Sydney CBD to Category:Parks in Central Business District, Sydney to spell out proper name. This is well populated so unless the contents are not parks in Central Business District, we should keep it. Josh (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I actually thought I'd made a mistake, then I realised I needed it, and I took off the template... not realising this discussion had already been created. I'll look into changing this to Central Business District, that is a good idea. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed per above. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
also Category:Winners of the 2014 FIFA World Cup, Category:Winners of the 2018 FIFA World Cup

There is only one winning team in every FIFA World Cup, no navigating function. The data is already included at the Wikidata Infobox, therefore I don't think this category is necessary A1Cafel (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Winners of the 2010 FIFA World Cup This is just an egregious case of using Commons categories to add Wikidata claims to things. Josh (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Winners of the 2014 FIFA World Cup and Delete Category:Winners of the 2018 FIFA World Cup as well for the same reason. Josh (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'm subsuming the discussions at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Winners of the 2014 FIFA World Cup and Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Winners of the 2018 FIFA World Cup into this one as they are essentially the same issue. Josh (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: I have changed the corresponding discussion link, thanks for the subsuming. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted with many others. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Convert to set index or disambig. There are many "Fort William" categories, too many for a simple See also, and this one does not have any obvious primacy. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me. Krok6kola (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: That sounds like easy consensus. Do you want to propose a particular name for this? And then turn Category:Fort William into a disambiguation? - Jmabel ! talk 16:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Category:Fort William, Cape Coast ? I've no strong feelings either way, but I know nothing of Ghana. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:Fort William, Cape Coast, Ghana ? And if I do the move, would one of you take on doing a disambiguation category? - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Most of the images in Category:Fort William appear to be of the lighthouse, not the fort at Anomabu, though some are not clear to me, so simply moving to Fort Anomabu does not seem correct. Josh (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate Category:Fort William @Jmabel and Krok6kola: The images currently there appear to mostly belong to Category:Fort William (Lighthouse), though some may be of Category:Fort Anomabu or other locations. Josh (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any difference in content between Category:Fort Anomabu and the lighthouse (i.e. Category:Fort William (Lighthouse)). The lighthouse is relatively modern, built on top of the older fort. So any content is going to implicitly cover both.
I would plan to do the following:

@Andy Dingley: There does seem to be a Fort William Lighthouses according to Fort William Lighthouse. Krok6kola (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the difference between Fort William and Fort William Lighthouse? As far as I can see, one is a newer building on top of the older. Any imagery we have here is going to fall under both. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Which Fort William are you asking about? Josh (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The one with a lighthouse on top of it. Commons seems to have two categories referring to the same building: Category:Fort Anomabu and Category:Fort William (Lighthouse). Despite the variation in name (Fort William is a later name) these seem to be the same location and concept. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: That Fort William was in Cape Coast and completely unrelated to the Fort William in Anomabu. Unfortunately the colonialist English lacked imagination in their naming habits! Josh (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley, the lighthouse is not part of a fort, according to Fort William Lighthouse. Krok6kola (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: As far I can tell, there was a time when Fort William Lighthouse was apparently simply called Fort William. I am not sure if it was a lighthouse in the fort or if after ceasing use as a fort they built the lighthouse part, but I think Andy Dingley is correct about that, just that was a different Fort William than the one in Anomabu. Of course records and such are hard to come by so exactly how these two sites evolved over time is a bit hazy, all I can say with confidence is that they are two distinct sites. Josh (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: You are correct. There are two distinct Fort William sites in Ghana which we have media of:
  1. Fort William: The name of an English fort in Anomabu, Ghana originally called Fort Anomabu until renamed in the 18th century. Our current category for this is Category:Fort Anomabu. I would recommend renaming this to Category:Fort William, Anomabu as Fort Anumabu was its early name, but its name during its most prominent use, the name inscribed in the World Heritage list, and its current name, not to mention its name at the time of depiction in all of the media we have, is Fort William.
  2. Fort William Lighthouse: A lighthouse in Cape Coast, Ghana in a structure that was once a fort named Fort William and now named Fort William Lighthouse. Our current category for this is Category:Fort William (Lighthouse). I would recommend renaming this to Category:Fort William Lighthouse as that is the full proper current name for it (and the name inscribed in the World Heritage list). There is no other Fort William Lighthouse AFAIK, so no need for additional dab in the name.
Andy Dingley was incorrect to equate Fort William Lighthouse with Fort Anomabu as those are two different locations. They are only 15 km apart but still very different sites. Most of the images in Category:Fort William are of the lighthouse, others I am not sure of the identity, but we should not assume. Josh (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: category made into disambig. --P 1 9 9   21:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

wrong name, Kisutam syllis is a synonym of Thecla syllis Lmalena (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lmalena: Can you provide evidence of that? Also note the following:
  • English Wikipedia gives completely different ranges for en:Kisutam syllis (from Mexico to southern Brazil) and en:Thecla (butterfly) (the Palearctic, which "stretches across all of Eurasia north of the foothills of the Himalayas, and North Africa".
  • Neither Commons nor English Wikipedia has anything for Thecla syllis.
Besides, Category:Kisutam syllis has a file in it, so that would need to be addressed before doing anything with the category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GBIF is a greater authority on biodiversity than en.wiki. https://www.gbif.org/en/species/9485398 and Kisutam syllis is listed as an homotypic synonym Lmalena (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: although they appear to be synonyms (even WD confirms this), we'll use this category name for now since this is were the files are and where the articles in English and French point to. I have created a new redirect for Category:Thecla syllis. --P 1 9 9   16:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Over-categorization. This is an overly narrow triple intersection between a subject, a location and a format detail about the medium used. We have one image here and are unlikely to see another.

What is the purpose of this cat? Is there some significance to the intersection? Is the medium ever going to be relevant; in a context so narrow, surely the searcher would be equally interested in anything we might have? Or is this to be the first of a vast list of construction vehicle sightings for every small town across Germany? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. it shows false knowledge or ignorance that you (in the UK) equate a German district with a small town. I would be wary of speaking in comparable terms about British administrative units, because I am not very familiar with them. I think like you with German administrative units.
German districts usually have an area of over 1,000 square kilometers, sometimes 2000 square kilometers and between 100,000 and 600,000 inhabitants. There are more than enough pictures and many more are expected for these categories in the future. Since there are countless black and white photographs for vehicles, it makes sense to divide them into different vehicles... Whether locomotives, ships, or even construction vehicles.
There are thousands of comparable categories. These also comply with the basic rules of categories. If you are from the UK, i suggest, you can discuss "Category:Black and white photographs of locomotives in the United Kingdom". This is the same compilation only with locomotives instead of construction vehicles.
Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 16:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @Andy Dingley: Do you really mean "over-categorization" as described at COM:OVERCAT, or are you really referring to overly-specific categorization instead? Josh (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @Andy Dingley: There appear to be a lot more than one image here now. Would you be okay with keeping it now? Josh (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: kept for now. I agree it is rather overly specific, but there is no real support here for deletion. --P 1 9 9   16:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I honestly don't see the purpose of setting "Meeting at the Estonian MFA". There are many meeting held everyday. If all of them are included, then the category will be flooded by hundreds (or even thousands) of files. Similarly, we don't have categories like meeting in the Austrian Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs or meeting at the US Department of State. A1Cafel (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to reiterate my response from respective COM:AN topic (Special:PermaLink/713902876#User:A1Cafel apparent misuse of Cat-a-lot tool) where other users also appear to be sort of baffled by this post-factum rationale of the removal of this category.
Firstly, I find this category useful as it holds information on location where photos in this category were taken and also on type of event (meeting). Generally such categorization does not seem different from categorization of any other image by location or by type of event. To my knowledge there isn't a limitation on how specific location or how specific type of event one can use for categorization. So far you didn't empty Category:Press conferences at the Estonian Foreign Ministry (different type of events at the same location). Is this category, or similarly, say, Category:Music performances in the White House, also problematic then?
As for why there isn't a similar category for meetings in these other foreign ministries, I don't know, but probably because sufficient amount of images on Commons simply haven't been identified as such yet. If there will be 1000s of images in a category, and this is considered a problem, then I suppose we can try to split it into subcategories, as is the case with any category.
Also please note that this category generally includes photos of more noteworthy meetings, i.e. photos that are uploaded to ministry's Flick stream and are subject to press releases, not images of any "meeting held everyday". Nevertheless, in that regard your rationale applies to any category subject that isn't overly specific, e.g. you might also say that let's not have Category:People because there are a lot of people in the world and "then the category will be flooded". 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:5141:74B7:D1BB:1BFC 11:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I do not know any reason why this category should be deleted. It is a useful category for the reasons you mentioned and to prevent overloading parent categories. To prevent "flooding by hundreds (or even thousands)" of files, you can make subcategories, for instance by year/date and/or by event/type of meeting and/or about the persons/countries involved.
By the way, request: Please log in with your account when you take part in discussions or add your (account) name. JopkeB (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep seems useful, if only as a location. - 05:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 Keep The fact that there may end up being 1000s of files is not reason for deletion, but quite the opposite. Sub-categories can be used to manage files like in any other topic. Indices by date, type, etc. can also help deal with file volume. Josh (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
ConsensusNo
ActionsKeep category
Participants
NotesMany reasons to keep this category
Closed byJopkeB (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

content in wrong cat. special:permalink/714025761#Category:Elections_by_country_by_year mistake to be corrected until the user understands the purpose. RZuo (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RZuo here pinged me towards this discussion, and in one thing they are correct: I have really NO idea what this supposed mistake is about. Please elucidate me: Which mistake and how is it to be corrected? --Enyavar (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Enyavar: I think it should be named Category:Elections by year by country. The part that is different among the subcategories goes last. I think we have other categories with the same wrong naming. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. The subcategories are "Elections in <country> by year", so having the same order in the parent category seemed only logical to me. Is there a rule about such a naming principle? --Enyavar (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Enyavar: That is understandable (I've made the same mistake). The principle is that an index category (by 'x') is a category for content about a topic ordered by a sort criteria, and the name should be in the format "'topic' by 'sort criteria'". In the case of double indices such as this one, the contents are categories of "Elections in country by year", which makes "country" the sort criteria and "elections by year" the topic that is sub-categorized. Thus "Elections by year by country" is the appropriate name as "by sort criteria" should always be the final phrase in the name. I hope I didn't just muddy it up worse with that explanation, so happy to clarify if needed. Josh (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Rename Category:Elections by country by year to Category:Elections by year by country per "topic by sort criteria" standard. Josh (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, once current contents are moved to Category:Elections by year by country,  Keep Category:Elections by country by year for correct content: "Year elections by country" categories (e.g. Category:2019 elections by country). Josh (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: @Enyavar: @Joshbaumgartner: I solved the issue, now category has listed years (as it should be), while countries are listed in new category Elections by year by country. Josh, you can close discussion. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved by consensus
Actionsdone
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This seems like a one-step too granular categorization. There are no other split of Jefferson Davis into by month within Category:Jefferson Davis by year, and it only contains the presidential inauguration. For comparison, Category:Abraham Lincoln in 1861, the US president, isn't split into months (Category:Abraham Lincoln 1861 presidential inauguration would be in Category:Abraham Lincoln in March 1861 which I do not remotely suggest). This is the only category in Category:Heads of state in February 1861, which is the only category in Category:Politicians in February 1861. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nomination. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Rename to Category:Sales managers, as this is the term Wikipedia and Wikidata both use to describe a person who supervises sales representatives and sales operations. It reduces confusion with the term "Account executive'. Senator2029 15:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per nomination The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

move to The Londoner Macao Darrelljon (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree since the name of the complex has changed. A note should also be posted on the Commons category page, detailing the naming history.Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. waiting for sysop.
note: dont rename subcats, because they relate to the old period. RZuo (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: already redirected. --P 1 9 9   16:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

 Delete overcat. no significance to track this. RZuo (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo At Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 7#Commons Android App problems, people seemed very interested in quantifying those problems. Why should this be any different? Brianjd (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This is not empty, so apparently has some utility. As an administrative category, I see no reason to delete at this time. Josh (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I concur with the nominator that I see little benefit of tracking improperly nominated files. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I see no utility in keeping track of misappropriate or malformed deletion requests. Whether the files are kept or deleted is likely to be because of a separate discussion created during the discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: agree per nom. Consensus for deletion. --P 1 9 9   19:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

There are two Brennan Parks in Sydney! Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Brennan Park (Sydney) per nom. Josh (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate Category:Brennan Park as there are multiple parks by this name on Commons. Josh (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: deleted per nom, and disambig category created. --P 1 9 9   16:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Rather silly name, also the other subcategories of Category:Propane deal with the chemical. Maybe a name in line with Category:Chemical structures by substance would be appropriate. Leyo 23:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename category . I agree it should be renamed for consistency with subcategories of Category:Chemical structures by substance. But the problem is that category is not consistent. It has subcategories of the following types:
Chemical structures of XYZ
Chemical structure diagrams of XYZ
XYZ structure
XYZ molecule
XYZ molecules
Molecular illustrations of XYZ
If they all were to be renamed for consistency, my preference would be "Chemical structure diagrams of" because it is clear and unambiguous. (The parent category would be renamed, too: Category:Chemical structure diagrams by substance.) Edited to add: just so it's clear, I  Support "Chemical structures of XYZ" per discussion below. Marbletan (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that the name of the subcategory may not be appropriate.
The only thing that is clear to me is that photos of real things related to propane (containers, flames, etc.) musts to be separated from the texts and diagrams of such gas at the molecular level.
Do what you deem convenient, but with a deadline; hundreds of discussions remain open for months or years without anyone giving the definitive solution. Please
--LBM1948 (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marbletan: I initially agreed, but there are some examples of photographs of models of chemical structures in some of these categories, and similar to what LBM1948 stated, such photographs aren't really appropriate in a 'diagrams' category. Would you be opposed to going the other way to leave Category:Chemical structures by substance as is, but format the sub-categories as Category:Chemical structures of carbon dioxide, Category:Chemical structures of DNA, etc? That would cover both actual diagrams as well as other depictions of the chemical structures, but not include depictions of the substance at a larger level. Josh (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, including "diagrams" in the category name may make it too specific. I have no objection to your suggestion. I think it would work just fine that way. Marbletan (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the name without “diagrams”, too. --Leyo 21:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Support "Chemical structures of XYZ". DMacks (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category moved to Category:Chemical structures of propane. --Leyo 12:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I think this should be renamed to Category:Memorials to the Indian Rebellion of 1857 to reflect the parent category's name. en:Names of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 gives some background on the various terminologies. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Rename Category:Memorials to the Indian Mutiny to Category:Memorials to the Indian Rebellion of 1857 to match parent category (Category:Indian Rebellion of 1857) name. Josh (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per consensus. --P 1 9 9   17:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Merge with Category:Findings from Epidaurus - two spellings of the same place name. Furius (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: per nom and redirected. --P 1 9 9   16:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

There are two issues with this category:

  • Its name is wrong. It’s about an accident on the Buda-Császárfürdő HÉV station – “Buda-Császárfürdő” would translate to something like “Buda-Emperor’s Baths” or “Buda-Emperor Baths”, not “Emperor of Danube-Budapest”, but I don’t think we should translate it at all in the first place.
  • It contains no media (the only file it contained was not depicting the accident itself, so I moved it to Category:Buda-Császárfürdő HÉV station), and I don’t think it’s likely to contain media ever.

Tacsipacsi (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: deleted per nom. --P 1 9 9   16:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Main roads are actually a specific legal designation in NSW, and no main road is in Casula. Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: deleted as empty. If this category is needed, then the correct structure would be "Category:Roads in ...". --P 1 9 9   19:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This never made sense - a non-local street road can be in one suburb, but a main/major road may flow through multiple suburbs. Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @Chris.sherlock2: Most roads go through multiple administrative units on their route (heck, that's the point of most roads I think), but I'm not sure why that would be problem. I'm not really questioning this particular nomination, but more the idea behind it which I see repeated in a few of them. If I have a picture of a major road within Green Valley, wouldn't this be the appropriate place for that image? Josh (talk) 08:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn’t that road then be part of a wider area though? Perhaps the idea still has merits. I originally set up this scheme but thought I’d better discuss it because I didn’t want to cause problems with categories.
If it is a valid scheme I’ll run with it. The only thing I’ll need to suggest is that we don’t use “main roads” as these are defined legally in NSW. We’d call them ”major roads” instead. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: deleted as empty. If this category is needed, then the correct structure would be "Category:Roads in ...". --P 1 9 9   19:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This never made sense - a non-local street road can be in one suburb, but a main/major road may flow through multiple suburbs. Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: deleted as empty. If this category is needed, then the correct structure would be "Category:Roads in ...". --P 1 9 9   19:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This is not a valid category (my fault). Main roads can actually go through more than one suburb. Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: deleted as empty. If this category is needed, then the correct structure would be "Category:Roads in ...". --P 1 9 9   19:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Makes no sense as main roads cross suburb boundaries. My bad. Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: deleted as empty. If this category is needed, then the correct structure would be "Category:Roads in ...". --P 1 9 9   19:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Main roads cross boundaries, please delete. This is my bad. Sorry. Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m speedying this one. Not sure how to close. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This category doesn't need to exist; there is no concept of the BLS S-Bahn distinct from the Bern S-Bahn or Lucerne S-Bahn. It had two images in it beforehand, one of which was a misidentified RegioExpress service to Spiez. Mackensen (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trout to yet another editor who empties a category, then claims "category has no content".
it would seem reasonable to keep this category as an overall supercat for both Category:S-Bahn Bern and Category:S-Bahn Luzern, and a child of Category:S-Bahn. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This wouldn't be correct, as neither S-Bahn Bern nor Luzern is BLS only. BLS operates S1 - S5 and derivates in Bern and S6 - S7 in Luzern. But RBS, zb and SBB are other participants in these networks. Gürbetaler (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley That's not a good solution. BLS isn't the the sole operator of either network, and it's not a valid proper name. There is no reason for this category to exist in 2023, which is probably why it only had two images in it (one of which, as I mentioned, was incorrectly identified). Mackensen (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I created this category, it was to distinguish the BLS and the RBS part of the S-Bahn Bern. With the later introduction of subcategories for each line and the categories for the vehicle types used, this category is no longer needed. Likewise we should separate Category:Regionalverkehr Bern-Solothurn S-Bahn into Category:S7 line (S-Bahn Bern) etc. Then we could delete both. Gürbetaler (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: deleted per nom. --P 1 9 9   16:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Empty category. There was only one file in this recently created category and that was incorrectly categorized Ooligan (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: deleted as empty. --P 1 9 9   19:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The description says that a group photograph in the Commons sense is a photograph of at least three people. Why is that, why not at least two? Where should photographs be categorized with only two people? I would like to have the same definition as in Wikidata: at least two people. JopkeB (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that's because photographs of two people go in Category:Photographs of couples. Although apparently it's a subcategory of this one. So it seems to me like this isn't a problem. Since it includes categories for two people, but isn't exclusive to them. Personally, I'd create sub-categories based on the number of people in the group. For instance something like Category:Group photographs of 2 people, Category:Group photographs of 3 people and so on. But then obviously "couple" is just the more widely used term for groups of two. So I don't think you could justifiably get rid of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank, User:Adamant1, for your reaction. My reaction:
  1. Since Category:Photographs of couples is a subcategory of Category:Group photographs, I would say that the description should be "at least two people", otherwise the couples cannot be part of it.
  2. "Couples" to me are people who obviously belong together, like a married couple or a couple in love. Two sibblings or two politicians are not couples to me, but groups existing of two people. See also the Wikidata item Q219160, where "couple" is described as: "set of two people linked in a physical and emotional community".
So I still plea for defining "groups" in Commons as having at least two people. JopkeB (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hhhhmm, I'll have to think about that. I'm not sure I agree that two politicians or two sibblings wouldn't be couples. At least going by your definition from the Wikidata item. Like two congress people would be a couple of congress people because they are "linked in a physical and emotional community" of politicians/congress. Same goes for siblings. I'm 100% linked to my brother through the emotional/physical community of our family. I think you could argue it gets a little abstract from there though. Like I don't think a category involving images of two rocks from the same geographical region would work as a couples category. So maybe it should be confined to living things, or more specifically humans. Maybe animals, but then your probably stretching it. Now that I think about it though, would an image of two brothers be a couple of brothers or would that have to be an image of two different groups of two brothers? lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that "Group photos" should be limited to people.
The question still is: for Commons, does a group photo exists of at least two or three people? I still think that it should be at least two people, because otherwise Category:Photographs of couples cannot be a subcategory of Category:Group photographs. Do you agree? JopkeB (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no objection for over a month, I conclude that a group of people consists in Commons of at least two people, just like in Wikidata. JopkeB (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus?
ActionsChange description to "two" instead of "three"
Participants
Notes✓ Done
Closed byJopkeB (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This seems like a bizarre category. Either this is artwork by a living artist uploaded here without evidence of permission or it is just spam art work uploaded by a user here. We should not be categorizing uploads by users with guesses as to their identity. If this is the artist, then the category should be renamed to Art work by the artist. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For now, the works are declared here as a artwork by the living artist with his permission, which published them under his Commons nickname User:Savonarolaola. The fact that the author granted his license and the fact the he published his works under his Wikimedia nickname don't imply automatically that his works are "spam art works". It is usual for many artists that their artistic identity is represented by a pseudonym or nickname, not by a civil name. In general, many users upload their works here under a nickname, without us knowing their real names. Grouping works by the same author into one category is a practical matter of content organization - regardless of how the identity of the author is described. --ŠJů (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ŠJů How are they "declared" the artist's work? Opinion? If they are the artist's work, the category should be renamed to Category:Art works by Šimon Brejcha. If they aren't, it should be deleted as we don't do Category:Art works by Wikimedians. Either way, someone editing an artist's page without disclosing a conflict of interest and then uploading their works under a GFDL license is a ridiculous way to ignore all other sensible policies. We don't accept people who edit an article about a television show and then upload screenshots and guess that they are the rightful license holder so we don't bother them or something. It may be an agent or someone else who is just a fan who has no right to just take the artist's license and change it. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: The uploader User:Savonarolaola declared the images as his own works and there is no reason to cast doubt upon these his claim. The fact that we do not know his civilian identity reduces the value and usefulness of his contribution, but is not in itself ground for deletion, nor against categorization of the images. The question of whether such pseudonymous artworks are within the project does not directly depend on whether we know the civil name of the artist, nor on whether the artist himself was the uploader. We have no evidence that User:Savonarolaola is identical with Šimon Brejcha. It's possible, but not likely, since none of those images is used in the article about Šimon Brejcha. However, it is likely that there is some relationship between the two persons. In general, if we have some images with uncertain localization or identification, the upload context (previous and following uploads of the same uploader) can help to better identify or at least estimate what the images can be, but such indications cannot be taken as assertions. But they can help direct others in their search, or at least suggest a larger context. --ŠJů (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating that the uploader "declared the images as his own works" here now but when you created this category in May 2021 you stated "nowhere is it declared"? Where was this declared? This is not Banksy or some pseudoanonymous artist. This is an actual living artist with actual artwork who may have zero idea what is going on here and has his work being reused with derivative works made. Again, I don't understand why you care that this uploader may or may not be the artist. If it is the artist, then fine, the artist can post whatever the hell they want to release into whatever license they want. Should the category be renamed to the artist then? Ricky81682 (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Since asking for permission on each of the images here, the images have all been deleted and the category is now empty. I think the category can be deleted as an empty category and this discussion closed as moot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Per @Ricky81682's comment above, speedy delete category since it's now empty. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

What is this category about? What should the description/definition be? Why is Category:Energy companies Category:Electric power companies not a subcategory? Can the content in this category be moved to Category:Electrical distribution or one of its parents? JopkeB (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Energy is broader than electricity, so a simple supercat relationship would be inappropriate there.
Supply also applies to both generation, distribution (both wholesale and retail) and (these days) storage.
So there's some possible tweaking needed to our expression of all this, but the definitions are clear enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Andy Dingley, for your reply.
1. Yes you are right, I made a mistake, I mean Category:Electric power companies.
2+3: Do you mean that this category should be a main category, comprising of a chain of elements and activities about electricity: generation (Category:Electric power generation), distribution (Category:Electric power transmission or a subcategory or its parent Category:Electricity networks?) and storage (Category:Electric batteries?)? Is electricity infrastructure (Category:Electricity network infrastructure‎) also part of it?
So the definition can be: The chain of generation, storage and distribution of electricity, from power plants to the point of electrictrical power connections in buildings. Would this be right? JopkeB (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resume

[edit]
  1. Electricity supply = The chain of generation, storage and distribution of electricity (both wholesale and retail), from power plants to the point of electrictrical power connections in buildings.
  2. Questions still to be answered:
    1. Should this category be a main category, with subcategories about the chain of elements and activities about electricity? Would these categories be subcategories:
      1. generation (Category:Electric power generation, including Category:Electric power companies)
      2. distribution (Category:Electric power transmission)
      3. Category:Electricity networks
      4. storage (Category:Electric batteries?)
    2. Is electricity infrastructure (Category:Electricity network infrastructure‎) also part of it?

--JopkeB (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: (and others) Would you please give your opinion about this resume? Is it right? Do you have answers to the questions still to be answered? --JopkeB (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
ConsensusProbably
ActionsAdd description to this category and add this category as parent category to all categories mentioned under "Resume". ✓ Done
Participants
NotesAs there were no objections to the resume for over a month, I close this discussion and implement the actions.
Closed byJopkeB (talk) 07:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Is Warmtenet (Groningen) the same as Category:Warmtestad (Groningen)? Can these two categories be merged? OR: What are the differences? And: Would Category:District heating pipelines Groningen be a better name, better inline with its parent categories and more neutral, indepent of who is the company? (I made this category before I saw the other two.) JopkeB (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Joostik, because you initiated both categories (Category:Warmtenet and Category:Warmtestad) could you tell what the differences are? --JopkeB (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably "Warmtenet" is part of "Warmtestad": Warmtenet is the infrastructure for transporting sustainable heating to buildings in Groningen (municipality), owned by the energy company "Warmtestad". Source: https://gemeente.groningen.nl/duizenden-woningen-versneld-van-het-aardgas-in-groningen. When there is no opposition to this view, I'll adjust the category structure over about two weeks:
--JopkeB (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus?
ActionsImplement proposal
Participants
NotesSince there were no reactions at all, not even from the pinged user, I'll implement my proposal, to solve this question and to be able to move forward.
Closed byJopkeB (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Should the category (and corresponding categories) be shortened to HGTV to align with common name of the network and logo usage? Astros4477 (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: per nom. --P 1 9 9   19:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/05/Category:Industry

This compound category needs to be split between Category:Production and Category:Manufacturing as these are separate and distinct concepts. In fact, "manufacturing" is a sector of "industry" which is a subset of "production" and categorization should reflect this. Josh (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment According to the English Wikipedia Category:Production and manufacturing, this category is based on JEL classification codes for classifying the article on Journal of Economic Literature, and its original title is D2 Production and Organizations.
The purpose of Wikimedia Commons is a common media repository for all Wikimedia Projects. If we changed the category structure only on the Commons, it may be inconvinient for the other Wikimedia Projects. So, It seems appropriate to leave the correspondence with the JEL classification codes as it is.--Clusternote (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commons categories are already far different than those on the individual Wikipedias and other sister projects, each of whom administer their own structures to meet their own needs. Likewise, we administer our categories to meet the needs of a media repository, and thus 'conformance with English Wikipedia categories' is not a guideline or policy for administering Commons categories. Josh (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment the Wikipedia Category:Production and manufacturing is not only existed on English Wikipedia, but also similar categories are existed on 56 languages version of Wikipedia. Thus, the notion of “Production and manufacturing” or “Production and Organizations” (original notation on JEL classification codes) seems already defact standard on the various Wikipedia projects.
How about leaving the current category structure untouched and creating a different hierarchical structure that coexists with them? For example, there is an example of the coexistence of multiple hierarchical structures with rational reasons, Musical instruments classification. --Clusternote (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clusternote there're all kinds of codes in this world. why are we following jel? what about Dewey Decimal Classification, Universal Decimal Classification, Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Library_classification#Methods_or_systems...?--RZuo (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: If you want to add those taxonomies as categories, please do it yourself. Because I respect inclusiveness, I have no objection as long as they coexist as independently as possible. In fact, I've already experienced to make coexistence of multiple taxonomy categories under the Category:Musical instruments classification‎. --Clusternote (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i just noticed this problem. jel doesnt even have a code for "Production and manufacturing".
@Clusternote who decided to change "D2 Production and Organizations" to this?
are you also going to create "L6 Industry Studies: Manufacturing", "N6 Manufacturing and Construction " and "O14 Industrialization • Manufacturing and Service Industries • Choice of Technology"??? RZuo (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: Following is my thoughts on this issue. If it couldn't apply to this issue, feel free to ignore it.
In my view, this issue seems possibly caused by some misunderstanding on the categorization. On Wikimedia Commons,
  • the simple entities or notions expressed by media files are often taken as the main subjects of categories.
    For example, Category:Products and Category:Manufacturing (originally "Organizations" on JEL) are this case.
On the other hand,
  • more complexed notions, including the relationship, or interaction, (and possibly ambiguities) between the simpler entities or notions, are also sometimes taken as the subjects of categories.
The reason why JEL classification code includes “D2 Product and Organizations” may be this later case, in addition to the importance or interests on this compound region for the JEL, --Clusternote (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clusternote and Joshbaumgartner:
  •  Agree that this category is redundant and should be split into Category:Production and Category:Manufacturing, the last one being a subcategory of the first one. I do not see any benefit in combining these concepts. Production is the umbrella term, for the making of all kind of products, for tangible products as well as intangible ones, like services. Manufacturing is only about the creation of tangible products.
  •  Agree that in Commons we administer our categories to meet the needs of a media repository, independently from other projects. They can give some guidance, but are not leading. On Commons there is no need to have a category for each Wikipedia article, in whatever language. Via Wikidata items the Commons categories can be linked to the corresponding articles in other projects, even with projects outside Wikimedia, like the JEL classification.
  •  Disagree that "Production and manufacturing" exists on 56 languages version of Wikipedia: when you look at this Wikidata item, you see that a lot of those Wikipedia articles in other languages than English are just about "Production", not about the combination.
JopkeB (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This discussion seems unclear on: what to do the correspondence with an English Wikipedia w:en:Category:Production and manufacturing. Note that the timeline is:
  1. Category:Manufacturing has been already exist on Commons since 04:03, 17 November 2004,
  2. Category:Production has been already exist on commons since 08:11, 14 January 2007‎, and
  3. Category:Production and manufacturing was then created in 20:46, 10 February 2015,
    as a correspondence to an English Wikipedia w:en:Category:Production and manufacturing,
    and it can be interpreted as "relationship, or interaction, (and possibly ambiguities)" between above two categories, as mentioned above. [added]
--Clusternote (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC) --[added]Clusternote (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Corrected the {{Wikidata Infobox}} to show wikidata:Q7013216 (Wikimedia category "Category:Production and manufacturing"). --Clusternote (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we on Commons bother about the correspondence with w:en:Category:Production and manufacturing? We just have to take care that in Wikidata are items for Production and Manufacturing, and that these two Wikidata items have links to the two Commons categories (which is already so). We can remove the Commons link from the Wikidata item Production and manufacturing so that there is no link from Commons to EN-WP anymore for this redundant category. (And of coarse make the other proposed changes on Commons.) JopkeB (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your post seems often missing the important points.
Originally this commons category was created to correspond to the Wikipedia category/Wikidata category (Wikidata:Q7013216), so if you want to delete this correspondence, you should explain why. --Clusternote (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly my point: a Commons category should not be created just because there is a Wikipedia category or a Wikidata item with the same name. A Commons category should only be created because we need it on Commons and for no other reason. And then, when there is indeed a similar Wikipedia article or category and/or a Wikidata item, then we can link it, not the other way around. So when we decide that we do not need a Commons category (anymore), then we just can remove the connection with the Wikidata item. JopkeB (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your belief and I disagree.

Wikimedia Commons is the media repository for all Wikimedia projects. And to bridge the gap between
(1) the self-contained category structure of Commons, and
(2) the practical category structures on other Wikimedia projects,
we need introduction of
(3) some form of the interpolating categories, such like a GoF's proxy pattern, for example.

Without it, other Commons users who also belong to other Wikimedia projects (shortly, inclusive users or (A)), would be plagued by the semantic gap between above (1) and (2), and they will be forced unique interpretation, which will lead to widespread confusion. We can avoid this problem by introducing above (3) in advance.

On the other hand, for Commons users who only concentrate on the Commons category structure (shortly, exclusive users or (B)), a proposal on the second comment on this discussion, "the coexistence of multiple hierarchical structures" may be useful.

In other words, (B) exclusive users should stay within (1) self-contained Commons category layer, and (A) inclusive users can create the (3) interpolating category layer, in considering with (2) practical category on other Wikimedia projects.

We have been solve this type of problem by this way, for several decades. --Clusternote (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be several decades, because Wikidata only exists since October 2012 and Commons since September 2004.
Josh: could you please answer to this view? I learned that Commons is independent in its decisions about categories and should not bother about other Wikimedia projects; in Commons we judge whether a category should exist only upon the criteria of Commons itself and I cannot find a Commons policy or guideline that says that we should have a Commons category for every category on other Wikimedia projects, no matter how illogical the category name on that other Wikimedia project is. JopkeB (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "several decades" in here means the history of the proxy pattern, its application, and my experiences in this field. The core issue on this discussion is also an application of it, in my opinion. You seems better to read the inter-wikilinks (or references, in other case) before negative response :) --Clusternote (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the question about who decides about Commons categories on Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/08#How independent is Commons in deciding which categories are appropriate?. --JopkeB (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete unnecessary union cat.
we should use cat:manufacturing as the corresponding cat for Q7013216. production is a much broader and more ambiguous term that includes things like movie production, music production...--RZuo (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Per RZuo and others. These types of compound "apples and oranges" categories seem to work on Wikipedia to some degree because articles don't necessarily have to be about a single main subject, but they aren't a good way to organize images since the actual objects in them often aren't at all related. Like with RZuo's example of music production. No one calls music producers "music manufacturers" and somewhere that manufactures the physical products that are used to record music onto aren't "music producers." So why combine these two concepts into a single category? "But Wikipedia/Wikidata" obviously isn't a valid reason. We are here to organize media and while other projects might interface with Commons that doesn't mean they dictate best practices or control how we do things. Especially if them doing either one would lead to subpar organizational systems. Really, Wikipedia could probably do with rejiggering a lot of their "apples and oranges" categories and articles also. It's not like they don't cause problems there to in some, if not all, cases. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions and questions

[edit]

Now the discussion Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/08#How independent is Commons in deciding which categories are appropriate? has been closed, we can go on with this discussion. That discussion led to the following conclusions, relevant to this category discussion:

  • Commons can make and maintain its own set of policies and guidelines, independant from Wikidata, EN-WP or any other Wikimedia project. Among them:
    • Commons category names should be useful for a media repository and comply with the rules of Commons ...
    • Try to avoid redundancy in the category structure, that means one category per topic and avoid multi-subject/composite/compound categories.
  • The bridge between Commons categories and other Wikimedia projects is Wikidata. A solution for topics being conflated in one wiki and separated in another can be found on Wikidata:Help:Modelling/Wikipedia and Wikimedia concepts. If that solution would not be sufficient in all cases, we still have the Template Commonscat.

My conclusions for this discussion:

  1. This multi-subject category is unnecessary and should be split into Category:Production and Category:Manufacturing, the last one being a subcategory of the first one.
  2. There are no obstacles anymore to cancel this compound category.
  3. We can remove this Commons category from the corresponding Wikidata item and solve the noted problems by adding P971 (category combines topics) for both subjects.

Questions for @Joshbaumgartner, Clusternote, RZuo, and Adamant1:

  1. Do you agree with these conclusions?
  2. Can we delete this category or should we make a redirect to Category:Production?

--JopkeB (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I say just delete it. The term isn't popular enough IMO to warrant a redirect and going by RZuo's recent comment "production and manufacturing" might not be a thing to begin with anyway. That's assuming I'm reading the comment correctly, but the category should just be deleted regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with that. The contents will have to be reviewed to make sure we don't orphan anything of course. I am actually fine with deleting this category, making it a redirect to production (or manufacturing), or making it a dab, they all work for me so long as it doesn't remain as a topic category. Josh (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it appears the premise for opposition to deletion doesnt even stand from the beginning. there isnt even a jel code for "Production and manufacturing", but only "D2 Production and Organizations". RZuo (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no objection to the conclusions, I close this discussion and shall implement the actions. --JopkeB (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]



This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions(1) Move subcategories and files of Category:Production and manufacturing to more appropriate categories (2) Ask for deletion of this category. (3) Check whether the Wikidata item should be adjusted. ✓ Done
Participants
Closed byJopkeB (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Rename Category:Progress (history) to Category:Social progress to better reflect contents and scope. Josh (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – keep the category name as is and if appropriate make the suggested category a subcategory. Any kind of historical progress is within the scope of this category, social progress would be (slightly?) more narrow. See w:Progress. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus No consensus
Actionsnone
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Rename Category:Heliports, helipads and helidecks to Category:Heliports , and add Category:Helipads and Category:Helicopter decks as sub-categories as they are components of heliports. These are three different things and should be their own distinct categories. Heliports are aerodromes specifically for helicopter operation and consist of one or more helipads/helidecks, support infrastructure (storage, fuel, passenger/cargo handling, etc.) for helicopter operations, and the surface occupied by these. Helipads are specific surfaces prepared for helicopter landing and takeoff. Helidecks are helipads which are built on structures or vessels. Josh (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


No reply for about a year. Thus, implementing nom's proposal.

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Thats not a name, but an independent combination of two separate given names. There a millions of possible combinations like this. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep  Wait Names are composed differently between cultures and ultimately individuals. There may be millions of possible combinations one could come up with, but we are only going to have categories for those we have files for and if we have files, then it is an appropriate category for them. Josh (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This category contains no files at all. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are files in Category:John Chessell Buckler, a subcategory of this one. Josh (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bahnmoeller@Joshbaumgartner definitely  Delete. Such nonsenses should be avoided whenever possible. Previous discussions Wikidata:Talk:Q50375210 Estopedist1 (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: Wikidata has their own criteria wholly different than that for Commons categories, so not that it is relevant to this discussion, but I do note you are (as of my writing) the only supporter of deletion in that discussion while the other commenter noted no objection to keeping them and in fact pointed out some of the hazards in presuming to define what is and isn't a given name or surname which should be included. I know many people with what might seem like a compound name to some but to them it just their name: I know a Miguel Angel, and he is "Miguel Angel", not "Miguel", not "Angel", just "Miguel Angel". Presuming that we can define what constitutes someone else's name is not the mission of Commons categories, so if we are going to categorize by given name, then all given names need to be given equal validity regardless of composition and without prejudice. Josh (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Josh you are the only supporter of keeping. You need to prove that "John Chessel" is a name in its own right. The former minister of defence of Germany has 12 given names. SO I can make 144 such categories like this one with only two each. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bahnmoeller: You are making an argument reductio ad absurdum, and even then, your math is off. Regardless, making random combinations of components of someone's name would be absurd. That is not what this category is, and so your point is irrelevant. As for needing to prove anything, that isn't really how CfDs work. We discuss and reach a consensus and take action, or no consensus is reached and the discussion is tabled. Also, if you are trying to badger me ('you are the only supporter'), that is also not a very constructive strategy. Josh (talk)
  • Delete If you have a person this is supposed to refer to, a redirect is appropriate. However there are no images, and no Wikidata entry. It doesn't make sense to create random categories for variations of names but the one subcategory was removed in 2018 so that should be restored to have a proper discussion. Still support deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ricky81682: Are you argueing for the deletion of all given name categories? Category:Gilda (given name) has no images--which category would you redirect it to? I agree with you that random categories are not okay, but nothing indicates this category is random and noone is claiming we should go create random name categories. The guy's name is John Chessell (and yes we do have images). Claiming it is random and that we have no files is a fallacious strawman argument. Now for a reason for deletion I haven't seen anyone here bring up but that would be a lot more convincing, and that is that there is currently one and only one person with this given name for which we have media. Generally, if there is only one subcategory in a category, there is a strong case to be made that one should be merged into the other. Of course, if we know of any other John Chessells we have or are likely to soon have media for, then that does not apply, but I think in this case, we are safe to merge these two categories, retaining the full name Category:John Chessell Buckler in the end. Josh (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:John Chessell (given name) into Category:John Chessell Buckler. If in the future we add more people named "John Chessell", we can recreate it as a category in its own right. Until then it is superfluous. Josh (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: Redirected to Category:John Chessell Buckler as per discussion. I also added Chessell as a given name to the wikidata entry, so that it automatically appears. --rimshottalk 22:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This category was created by a globally banned user in an attempt to spread hoaxex. All items should be recategorized into Dak Lak instead. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 16:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just for context, "Darlac" is the old name in English. It's not a hoax, it's just antiquated. Also, edits by blocked and banned users aren't typically deleted here (unless they violate copyright or spread actual hoaxes). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Redirected to Category:Dak Lak long ago. --rimshottalk 23:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/05/Category:Men with opened mouths

Similar to the men category, this seems unneccessary. It seems like this and Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/05/Category:Men with opened mouths should be parallel to each other. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @E4024, Beeblebrox, Kritzolina, ŠJů, Estopedist1, and Lallint: so everyone from the Category:Men with opened mouths discussion is notified. The creator of both categories is the same. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: If you don't have a preference, then you don't have to comment. It doesn't help the decision process. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep--Trade (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: Thanks, but a rationale is needed. Discussions aren't decided based on the number of votes. They are decided based on the reasons given in people's comments. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe simple facial expressions and similar constitutes a violation of personality rights Trade (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment  Wait I am sympathetic with the reasons for deletion, but I'm not sure that deletion is really the answer for the problem. Yes, the fact that images of women get far more detailed attention in creating and populating these kinds of categories is probably a sad comment on the natural biases in the interests of the collective user base. However, shutting these categories down will do nothing to change that. I do not think that the categories are necessarily inherently objectifying of their subjects. I am leaning towards  Keep all but would like to hear a bit more before being convinced one way or the other. Josh (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved by consensus
ActionsDelete the category ✓ Done
Participants
NotesThere's a clear consensus to delete the category. It's way to subjective and granular anyway. These types of ultra specific categories usually are.
Closed by--Adamant1 (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]