Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2019/01
Category moved to Basketball games Yuanga (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Close. Inconsistent, nonsense CfD. The correct name is "matches". -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Category merged Yuanga (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Closed no need for a RfD. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
redundant category Yuanga (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Close misuse of the CfD. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
A classification of World Clubs will be always messy. Inside Category:Basketball matches by country the matches are categorized by club too. Yuanga (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Closed. Inconsistent or non sense request. The category is mother cat for "Basketball matches by club by country" -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a redundant category, which should be deleted. The category to use is Category:Ludovica Anina Thornam Rsteen (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Closed. Moved the latter to the former. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Bad Name: Category:Files by User:Wuselig/GLAMonTour/Stuttgart/Staatsgalerie Wuselig (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
of the Magi by the Three Wise Men ist en:Pleonasm, one or the other. I propose to move content to Frescos of the Three Wise Men which can't be super and submit !!! or Frescos of the Adoration of the Magi, relationship unclear sub/supercat system changingOursana (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks like someone didn't realize the Magi refers to the Three Wise Men, not to Christ. Deleted and moved contents to Category:Frescos of the adoration of the Magi, itself a sub-category of Category:Frescos of the Three Wise Men (just as Category:Adoration of the Magi is a subcategory of Category:Three Wise Men). - Themightyquill (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Ressureição de Cristo 2804:14D:32A0:88B8:70FB:6432:C3A5:ABFC 18:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- closed. Inconsistent request. The work is from an Italian painter. No reason why the category should be written in Portuguese: where available, exonyms must be written in English or, if not available, must be written the original title in the language of the author (in this case Italian). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This road does not exist, the category was created in error. Please delete. Famartin (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. @Famartin: Mistakes happen - next time, please just use {{Bad name}} when no discussion is required. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Bitte löschen, fälschlicherweise angelegt. Please delete this category, it was created by mistake J Abele (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Unnecessary categorization: the number of images in its parent category is still too small to perform diffusion N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 03:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I tagged it as empty to get it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Closing: category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
We have another RD at Category:Bands, which is OK; we should delete this one. E4024 (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. No need for singular alternatives as redirects. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment I have converted in into a DAB. @E4024: are you happy with that? However not everyone will realize that categories are in the plural form and this can help readers and editors find the correct location. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Of course, why not? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was disambiguate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Should be renamed Category:Aircraft by country of registration to match other 'aircraft by country' categories: Category:Aircraft by country of location, Category:Aircraft by country of service, and Category:Aircraft by country of origin. Josh (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. ––Apalsola t • c 11:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support This makes sense. De728631 (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Apalsola and De728631: Without opposition, will go ahead and make this change. Josh (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Ctush Kaung Lay 65.18.120.148 20:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done: Nonsense, nothing to discuss. --jdx Re: 20:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
duplicate of Category:Christopher Buckley Robby (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Tagged as empty to get it deleted. @Robby: For future reference, this kind of case usually doesn't need discussion: you can use the {{Empty page}} template to get empty pages deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Close: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Should be renamed Category:Modified aircraft. "Customized" implies a one-off modification done to an individual aircraft, and that the customization makes the aircraft unique. However, the category also includes aircraft modified in series, that is a number of aircraft all modified to a new design standard (Category:Aviation Traders ATL-98 Carvair or Category:Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter). The word "modified" much better captures the full use of this category than "customized", so it should be changed. Josh (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Josh (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Done without opposition. Josh (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
empty cat (duplicate) please delete Hans Erren (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Done: empty cat. --JuTa 10:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
This category was deleted once already, and the current edition has the same problem as before — how do we define "clip art" in a useful manner? I don't think all flag illustrations are clip art (e.g. File:Flag of the United States.png); is there any clear way to demonstrate that I'm either right or wrong? Clip art is small and simple; is there an upper limit beyond which something is too large or complex to be clip art? See File:Bagpipes.svg, nominally nearly a million pixels and quite complex; it seems much too big for clip art, but again there's no definition (as far as I'm aware) proving or disproving me. Any category ought to have reasonably clear boundaries for inclusion, and this doesn't at all. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
PS, none of the subcategories should be deleted. One is SVG files from a specific source, one is files from a source whose name includes "clip art", and one is a user category. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree it should not exist as a category, but since my deletion only lasted a few months last time, perhaps we should leave it as a redirect this time... - Themightyquill (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Illustrations - Themightyquill (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Empty category. It should be deleted. Jarash (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- No need to discuss then. I marked it for speedy deletion. --E4024 (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Another one of those hundreds of "Downtown Historic" categories made in 2016 by 104.243.164.1 and other anonymous IPs no matter how small or indefinite; see Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/07/Category:Wisconsin Dells Downtown Historic. Only file was File:Espanola Downtown, 1920.jpg. Closeapple (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Close -- cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
discussion not needed, exists by typo only instead of Category:Mitophyllus foveolatus Uwe Lück (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Since it is just a typo, I added {{Bad name}} to it. Josh (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Closing -- cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Erroneous name; should be deleted, all content was recategorized ssr (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Close -- cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Empty, redundant category N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 01:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Close -- cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
back and white photographs of nude girls 49.183.50.82 06:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done: Nonsense, nothing to discuss. --jdx Re: 21:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there actually a city called "Hunza" and why is there no record of it on wikipedia? Where is it? Themightyquill (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- See Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/11/Category:Hunza Valley. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder! - Themightyquill (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Converted to disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Вики амбасадор у Републичком центру за истраживање рата, ратних злочина и тражење несталих лица
[edit]Should be in English language acc. to Commons:Categories Ies (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ies Hi. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have redirected the original category to category in English Category:Wiki ambassador in Republic Center for research of war, war crimes and search for missing persons. My experience with the categories is very limited so if there is something further to be done regarding this issue I am open to suggestions. Thanks in advance. Ljubiša Malenica (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Ljubiša Malenica for the translation. I already moved the images to the new category to make things work. Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- I helped you to properly categorize photos. See Category:Republic Center for research of war, war crimes and search for missing persons and it's subcategories. --Smooth O (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Wiki ambassador in Republic Center for research of war, war crimes and search for missing persons. Thanks for your friendly cooperation on this one, Ies, Ljubiša Malenica, and Smooth O. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Meaningless RD. Should be deleted. I brought it here because I have no intentions to enter into an edit fight with a user that has little experience in categorization or whatsoever. (This has some background, easy to find and learn.) E4024 (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: Not sure why the redirect is so offensive. It seems reasonable to expect that not everyone looking for the Turkish Consulate would know that the proper name for the place is Brajkiewicz Manor. Thus a redirect seems an easy way to deal with it. Am I missing something? Josh (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Probably. We -the concerned users- already reached an understanding and agreement. :) Please see: Category talk:Brajkiewicz Manor. Now I will get this RD deleted and "santas pascuas!" (Everything OK! :) BTW, in my country, Turkey, there is a saying more or less to be translated as, do not meddle in a fight between husband and wife, mother-in-law and daughter-in-law et al, because, they say, "they make peace before you notice and you will be the bad guy". :) Thanks Josh. Cheers! --E4024 (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Done - Closed by the CfD opener; everything is alright by now. --E4024 (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Hong Kong Government = Category:Government of Hong Kong Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Apparently "Hong Kong Government" is fairly commonly used. Redirect to Category:Government of Hong Kong to match peers. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Redirected Category:Government of Hong Kong. - Themightyquill (talk)
Por usó de software desconocido.. 2600:1:C755:7E4F:A1D4:EB0:740:F4CF 10:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep This seems a perfectly valid category, am I missing something? Josh (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)- Keep No valid reason given to change anything here. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Superfluous, content has been moved to categories for father and son Natalie Freyaldenhoven (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Should Category:Public toilets in the United States be a subcat here? Do all rest areas feature a bathroom? I was very confused as to why images such as File:Tunnel View, Yosemite Valley, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg showed up when searching for Quality images of toilets, and that's one reason. Trougnouf (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
As a side question do we have a tool to visualize where a category come from in the tree? --Trougnouf (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Clarify: Category:Rest areas in the United States is a subcategory of Category:Public toilets in the United States, not vice versa. The only possible connection I see is that rest areas (usually? often?) have public toilets. I don't think that's sufficient for a parent-child relationship between categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Done I removed it. Unfortunately that wasn't the only connection, lots of US pictures are still coming up under quality images of Category:Toilets. --Trougnouf (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Resolved by Trougnouf. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Main category doesn't have much photos like Category:Solar eclipse of 2017 August 21. It is better for us to keep it in one category. Otherwise it may be clumsy for those who want to search the photos. Looking through categories with similar amount of photos, they don't have any subcategory. This may be unnecessary. B dash (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, maybe the category Category:Solar eclipse of 2018 August 11 in Moscow really doesn't have much photos (2 files). But if we delete this, the category Category:Solar eclipse of 2018 August 11 in Russia would have 4 files (2 from Moscow + 2 not from Moscow). Three files is enough to create any category, not only for solar eclipses. Moreover, Russia was a one of the main coutries from what the eclipse of August 11, 2018 was seen (I don't even mention the size of Russia). Today we decide to delete the category, and tomorrow someone from Russia will make 5 photos about eclipse and we will recreate it again. --Brateevsky {talk} 15:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also I don't understand — "it may be clumsy for those who want to search the photos". For whom? And why to search — the photos have already been exist. =) I think, the tree structures better than 10-20 photos in only one category. Let's take Category:Solar eclipse of 2015 March 20. The construction of this category provides users to see photos of solar ecipse from Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Poland, Russia and others. From every counrty that user wants. For example, to find photos of solar eclipse of 2015 March 20 only for Slovenia — Category:Solar eclipse of 2015 March 20 in Slovenia, here. Moreover, these specified categories provide users who edit Wikipedia, to choose the photos from different countries and different cities (one photo from Russia, one from France, one from Slovenia, etc.) instead, for example, to fill into article the photos only from 1-2 countries. --Brateevsky {talk} 15:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Let's take the category of recent eclipse — Category:Solar eclipse of 2019 January 6. If I don't know the geography good and I want to find photos from China — I should to view all of 12-3=9 photos? To make a "full scan"? --Brateevsky {talk} 15:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- So I think we will Keep categories which contain 3 photos or more. I ready to disassemble (ru: разобрать, удалить) the category of Moscow and to save the category for Russia (and the latter will countain 4 photos). And to recreate the similar category — Category:Solar eclipse of 2018 August 11 in Finland, too. --Brateevsky {talk} 15:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – four images is enough. Yes, browsing files in the union of subcategories is currently clumsy, but this can be eventually fixed with smart software. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Consensus to delete Category:Solar eclipse of 2018 August 11 in Moscow, upmerging images to Category:Solar eclipse of 2018 August 11 in Russia. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Main category doesn't have much photos like Category:Solar eclipse of 2017 August 21. It is better for us to keep it in one category. Otherwise it may be clumsy for those who want to search the photos. Looking through categories with similar amount of photos, they don't have any subcategory. This may be unnecessary. B dash (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- See discussion about Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01/Category:Solar eclipse of 2018 August 11 in Russia. --Brateevsky {talk} 14:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete, per above discussion. --219.79.126.5 06:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01/Category:Solar eclipse of 2018 August 11 in Russia. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Is it different from its subcat "Hirudo medicinalis"? E4024 (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Beyond taxonomy, perhaps the category should be more "Medial use of leeches", as the category is more about what use they are put to than species. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Medical use of leeches. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Requesting renaming to Category:Seobu Bus Terminal Station, due to station name changed. See [1] in Korean. そらみみ (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
No opposition. Redirected to Category:Seobu Bus Terminal Station. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Empty category IndianBio (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
We don't normally combine two different things like this in a category. The category should be either deleted or renamed to reflect what the common element was intended to be. Auntof6 (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just as you said. Category:Weekend and Holiday to empty. --Benzoyl (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Weekend and Category:Holidays both exist. I don't see the reason for this combination. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe the creator was thinking of times that people are usually not working? Still not a good combination, though, since the scope is unclear: is it files created during weekends or holidays, files illustrating them, or something else? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Weekend and Category:Holidays both exist. I don't see the reason for this combination. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
this category should be merged with Category:Yemelyan Korneev SealMan11 (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I guess it could be transliterated either way? Redirected to Category:Yemelyan Korneev. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The town of Katipunan is located in Zamboanga del Norte province, not Zamboanga del Sur province. Items are now manually moved to the simpler Category:Jose Rizal Farm. JWilz12345 (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The town of Katipunan is located in Zamboanga del Norte province, not Zamboanga del Sur province. Category now manually replaced by Category:Katipunan, Zamboanga del Norte. JWilz12345 (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
This category should be merged with Category:Egor Skotnikov SealMan11 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Merged. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Suggest redirect to Category:People holding smartphones or (if absolutely necessary) rename to Category:Young people holding smartphones as a clearer description of he contents. Themightyquill (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Would the German name "Generation Kopf unten" be an alternative? see: Generation Kopf unten --Molgreen (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I understand the meaning, but no, I don't think avoiding the direct translation solves the problem. Neither provides an objective description of what's being depicted. Let me put it this way, if we had Category:Young people holding smartphones, what would you put in a subcategory Category:Head-down generation that would be different? I might add, we don't have Category:Generation X pr Category:Baby boomers either. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I agree. Please set up a redirect. Thanks for the discussion --Molgreen (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to the more objective Category:People holding smartphones. --Animalparty (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:People holding smartphones. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Juan Santamaría International Airport as per diacritics on Wikipedia? Liverpoolpics (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Juan Santamaría is the name. --E4024 (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
collision of uss belknap 2603:9000:B111:F700:94AB:E41:B8CD:820F 15:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Can you please clarify the issue with this category, or what you are proposing to change? Thanks, Josh (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
This empty category can be deleted, content have been moved into Category:Salgari_-_I_solitari_dell'Oceano (1904) Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 21:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Kategorie löschen wegen Kleinschreibung von Ingolstadt! Chrisi1964 (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
empty category Robby (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I guess the challenge is that the wikipedia article is at en:Robert (1793 ship) whereas the only images we have are from after it was renamed. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't even remember. There was a few weeks where I was sorting through a pretty big media dump that included a lot of US and UK ships, and I have no idea how many categories I ended up creating. I trust most of them were right. If this one wasn't, then by all means, nominate for speedy deletion at creator's request, and you can link to this comment. Also thanks for catching my mistake Robby. GMGtalk 22:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
This seems to be redundant to Category:Slipways and its subcategories. Unless there is a reason to have a dedicated category for boat ramps, the content of this category should be recategorised to "Slipways" with redirects. De728631 (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I see some distinctions between "Slipways" and boat ramps, mainly in how the two types of vessels (boats vs. ships) are launched. Plus, the use of the word "slipway" seems a lot less common in the United States. ----DanTD (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- The English variant shouldn't be a problem. That's what redirects are meant to be used for. If there is a technical distinction though (size matters, I guess), I'd say there is a point in having these two categories. De728631 (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Do all slipways have rails and all boat ramps work with car trailers? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- The English variant shouldn't be a problem. That's what redirects are meant to be used for. If there is a technical distinction though (size matters, I guess), I'd say there is a point in having these two categories. De728631 (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- When I take a look at both en:Slipway and de:Slipanlage, these terms are used interchangeably. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 14:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. What now? We can merge these all together, or we could sub-categorize based on type. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- My point of view is, that there is a major difference between slipways and boat ramps. A slipway is a professional construction (mainly with rails) and a boat ramp is a simple ramp for boat carrying vehicles (e.g. boat trailers). Unfortunately the wikidata links to the respective articles are not correct and some files wrong categorized. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- @De728631: Due to the fact, that there are no more contributions, I suggest to close this discussion and to keep the category. Boat ramp is an established term in English as well as in German (Bootsrampe). --Ein Dahmer (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- My point of view is, that there is a major difference between slipways and boat ramps. A slipway is a professional construction (mainly with rails) and a boat ramp is a simple ramp for boat carrying vehicles (e.g. boat trailers). Unfortunately the wikidata links to the respective articles are not correct and some files wrong categorized. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. What now? We can merge these all together, or we could sub-categorize based on type. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- When I take a look at both en:Slipway and de:Slipanlage, these terms are used interchangeably. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 14:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Following the explanations by Ein Dahmer, the categories should be kept as they are but content should be recategorised where applicable, i. e. large professional devices vs. small ramps for trailers and the like. De728631 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Typical wrongly-titled cat. Other than making Hospitals "hospitals" probably the name should better be something like Hospitals of the or in the... E4024 (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Either of E4024's suggestions would be an improvement. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Hospitals of the Ottoman Empire. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
It's a huge amount of extra work to categorize every person on commons based on the language(s) they speak, let alone a combination of their language and occupation. In the vast majority of cases, it's not a relevant intersection (English-speaking doctors would be pretty useless), and can usually be assumed by their location in the country category tree (and therefore redundant). It's no surprise, therefore, that this category has not developed past one language in almost a year. I don't think even wikipedia projects categorize people by language - why would we do so for images of people? Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have linked a related discussion of a category that seems to be a duplicate of this one. I think both could be eliminated. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Aunt. It shows I was right... --E4024 (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Already existing here: Category:Fuad I of Egypt باسم (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Alternate spelling. Redirect to Category:Fuad I of Egypt. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Fuad I of Egypt. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
This cat should better be merged to Category:Cairo University. The title is wrong anyways. E4024 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Apparently it was known as "King Fuad I University" from 1940 to 1952, so a redirect from Category:King Fuad I University to Category:Cairo University might make sense, but there's no reason for a redirect from "Fouad I university", much less a sub-category. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Cairo University. E4024 (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Apparently it was formerly known as "Egyptian University" so a redirect from Category:Egyptian University to Category:Cairo University might make sense, but there's no reason for a redirect from the Latin name, and certainly no reason for it as its own subcategory. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Should be merged with Category:Wikipedia Day 2019 Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Redirected. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
No need to subdivide by year when we have only two photos and they were both taken in 2011. Themightyquill (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
No opposition in over a month. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Engravings of Uncle Sam ? Themightyquill (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, unless there are images of Uncle Sam doing engraving. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Moved. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Currently empty. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Reiyukai à Newyork 92.91.74.62 07:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done: Nonsense, nothing to discuss. --jdx Re: 08:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I accidentally created this as a typo. The correct category is Category:Prophets with Targum Jonanthan BL Or 2210-2211. Please delete. Dovi (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Prophets and Writings with Targum-Tafsir BL Or 2210-2211-2375. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Propose renaming to Category:Dolby Theatre. That's current name of this theatre. John123521 (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- We are -I hope- more interested in most common names and not current (official ?) names. How do most people call this theatre? --E4024 (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I would say we're more interested in official names. A redirect, however, makes sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Rename: per nomination. ℯxplicit 07:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Is Category:People by ethnic or national origin different than Category:People by ethnicity ? It's almost entirely empty. Themightyquill (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, and have no idea what People of Europe people by ethnic or national origin is meant to be. I think Category:People by ethnicity already does this job. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have a more drastic solution: First kindly ask, if they do not obey, simply "prohibit" opening new cats to several users. I have three names in mind. If we can do something like that, I will propose the user names with examples of their wrong categorization. That will decrease the cats opened to discussion, at least by me. Note: I am writing this in general, not for this case; and of course I did not open this CfD. Regards. --E4024 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: Given that these categories were both created years ago, I don't think targetting the users in question with some kind of sanctions is the right solution. If you'd like to raise complaints about specific users, please do so at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, not here. Feel free to ping me when you do so, if you want. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. It is near-empty and redundant with Category:People by ethnicity. There is nothing to merge. Place Clichy 06:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
No opposition. Emptied and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Requesting renaming to Category:Cheongna Hill Station or Category:Cheongna Eondeok Station or Category:Cheongnaeondeok Station, due to station name changed. See [2] in Korean. But the exact English name is still unknown. そらみみ (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment ja: 改称されていたことを今知りました…。取り敢えず、現地での正式な（英字）名称が判明するまではこのままでも良いと思います。（wikiのシステムですから、誰かが気付いてくれるはず、と気長に待つことにしたいと思います）ko:역 명칭이 변경됨을 이제 알게 됐습니다. 일단 영문 명칭을 알게 될 때까지는 옮기지 않는 편이 낫다고 생각합니다.en: Now I get to know that this station name was changed. if we get to know new station name's spelling we should change this category's name. thanks LERK (Talk / Contributions / Mail) 13:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- @LERK: Thanks for your comment. According to this website, official English name is “Cheongna Hill Station”.そらみみ (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Done, as the official website gives the English name as "Cheongna Hill Station".--そらみみ (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
"Ville-Marie," the central borough of Montreal, is getting all too commonly confused with Category:Ville-Marie, Quebec - a distant small Quebec town. I think the best route is to rename this one as Category:Ville-Marie (Montreal) in keeping with other boroughs requiring disambiguation at Category:Montreal boroughs. Is there consensus to do so -- or a simpler way to avoid Montreal images ending up in the unrelated category? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support w:Ville-Marie is a DAB page and the criteria for primary topics for Commons categories is higher than WP articles. However Category:Ville-Marie, Montreal would appear to be the usual form of disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Crouch, Swale. I see that en:WP:PLACEDAB does indeed support the use of comma, as you say. It would make it an outlier in Category:Montreal boroughs, but perhaps that could be corrected later. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes most of those in w:Category:Boroughs of Montreal use "Quebec" as the disambiguator, however Ville-Marie is different in that there is another in Quebec so using "Montreal" is sensible here and that's what WP uses for Ville-Marie. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's interesting. Yes, there's a big disconnect between the enwiki and Commons categories, and not simply in the punctuation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes most of those in w:Category:Boroughs of Montreal use "Quebec" as the disambiguator, however Ville-Marie is different in that there is another in Quebec so using "Montreal" is sensible here and that's what WP uses for Ville-Marie. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Crouch, Swale. I see that en:WP:PLACEDAB does indeed support the use of comma, as you say. It would make it an outlier in Category:Montreal boroughs, but perhaps that could be corrected later. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Ville-Marie, Montreal. Category:Ville-Marie to be a disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Only empires? E4024 (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I added Category:Former kingdoms but still there are things to do around here. Opening new cats must not be done in an "open and forget" manner. I open these to discussion and at the same time begin to help develop. This is a collective effort. --E4024 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Other sub-categories added. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Unclear wording. What is "support" here? Surely we can find some better wording? Category:Graffiti by support likewise. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- How about "by surface"? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- We have to distinguish from the medium (paint etc.) i.e. Category:Graffiti by medium. But otherwise yes, we're looking for better words. "Surface" is one. "Substrate" would be precise, but it's an obscure word. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Should we create a separate category "Paintings by surface" for things like Category:Paintings on canvas, Category:Paintings on wood, Category:Paintings on stone, Category:Street painting, Category:House paintings, Category:Paintings on automobiles, etc? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Good idea. Right now those categories are mixed with categories for the type of material used to make the image (sand, different kinds of paint, etc.). --Auntof6 (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Should we create a separate category "Paintings by surface" for things like Category:Paintings on canvas, Category:Paintings on wood, Category:Paintings on stone, Category:Street painting, Category:House paintings, Category:Paintings on automobiles, etc? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- We have to distinguish from the medium (paint etc.) i.e. Category:Graffiti by medium. But otherwise yes, we're looking for better words. "Surface" is one. "Substrate" would be precise, but it's an obscure word. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Inscriptions by surface, created Category:Paintings by surface and Category:Categories by surface. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Most of files are photos of non-free work (no FOP in Russia). Need massive cleanup. VlSergey (трёп) 10:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Vlsergey: So long as we have images, it makes sense to keep them in a single category. If there are images that should be deleted, please nominated them. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Nothing inherently wrong with the category itself. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry but I really do not know what to say. Would it be OK to simply ask the deletion of this unnecessary cat? Maybe people stranded in snow may have more time to opine on this cat. E4024 (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree: delete. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Either delete or create Category:Spice Girls' husbands and boyfriends... =) - Themightyquill (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Categorisation by this trait is done on various Wikimedia projects as it can often be their most notable trait. Beyond that wags are well covered in media and in fiction and are a prominent part of popular culture. More is covered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAGs CallyMc (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I think it's offensive, but en:Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends does exist. It's hard to argue with that. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
No consensus to delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Should be moved to "Category:Neolog synagogue in Bratislava"; correct english name Buidhe (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. The current category is strangely phrased. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Neolog synagogue in Bratislava - Themightyquill (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Error creating. David Hospital (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Category name was not good enough, so I renamed it, therefor this category is obsolete and superfluous - please delete Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Renamed Category:Warmelo garden and park. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
People mixed up "Radisson Hotel Group" and "Rezidor Hotel Group". They are two entities. Rezidor Hotel Group, now known as Radisson Hospitality AB, only became a subsidiary of Carlson Hotels (now Radisson Hotel Group) in 2010. Rezidor only licensed the brand from Carlson Hotels since 1994, and did not own any brand by themselves (Missoni was another brand they acquired the rights to use). Park Inn for example, was owned by Carlson Hotels (now Radisson Hotel Group). To sum up, and for simplcity , the cat should merge to Category:Radisson Hotel Group, the current trading name of the hotel group, as we hard to tell which hotel belong to parent or the subsidiary. Matthew hk (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC) (edited 08:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC))
The cat should renamed to Category:Rezidor Hotel Group to served as a cat for anything related to the hotel operator, in parallel with hotel brands categories. It is hard to differentiate Rezidor Hotel Group from the activities of parent company Radisson Hotel Group, but seem doable. Matthew hk (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved to Category:Rezidor Hotel Group. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Please delete, wrong street name, right name is Industriestraat (see new cat: Category:Industriestraat, Delft) Tukka (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Team is now named "Binghamton Rumble Ponies". There's a redirect from that name which points here, but this category should be moved and the redirect should point there. Waz8 (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved to Category:Binghamton Rumble Ponies. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Another one-file cat for a Matthias Laurenz Gräff art work. I am afraid we are not obliged to make special cats for every work by this artist. More than categorization, this resembles self promotion. Therefore I propose to delete the cat. E4024 (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- BTW "Art" is not a proper name, in English we do not use capitals that often as in some other languages. --E4024 (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody came to discuss. Therefore I took the only file out of this unnecessary cat and am marking it for deletion. --E4024 (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
The category is about non-pursuit vehicles of Memphis Police Department. However, the short form "MPD" should be changed to "Memphis Police Department", as this can be ambiguous. Therefore, the category is proposed to be changed to Category:Non-pursuit Memphis Police Department vehicles. 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved to Category:Non-pursuit Memphis Police Department vehicles. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
This cat must be merged into Category:Writers in Kurdish. E4024 (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why? We can't have a cat for Kurdish people who are writers? They might not all write in Kurdish. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oh? Will we do it for everybody? Other than "Writers from Turkey" and "Writers in Turkish" (which IMO should be renamed to "Turkish writers") will we also have "Turkish writers"? Will we do it for every country, people, ethnicity etc or do Kurds have a privilege in Commons? Probably you are trying to use NPOV but in fact without even noticing wide-opening the gates to POV editors. I hope you wake up on time. I'm done here. --E4024 (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, I forgot: Next step we bring experts from Nazi Germany to measure people's skulls to determine their ethnicity... (Open the doors of hell, Commons is coming. :) --E4024 (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- No need to be uncivil. I can't take you seriously when you post things like that, even with the emoticon. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- If you make a scale of civility in Commons, I bet I will be one of the top players. All the same excuse me. Best. --E4024 (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- No need to be uncivil. I can't take you seriously when you post things like that, even with the emoticon. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- For people who are not only interested in certain people(s): Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Poets in Persian. Other issues under the sky... --E4024 (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- We do have Category:Jewish writers as a separate category from Category:Hebrew writers or Category:Yiddish writers. And we certainly have Category:Writers from Turkey as a separate category from Category:Writers in Turkish. I don't understand the suggestion that Kurds have some special privilege here - it seems you're sugesting they should have less privileges because they don't have a state. I don't suppose you'd support Category:Writers from Kurdistan either? =) - Themightyquill (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
No consensus to deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not a good category name, because Annam may refer to Annam (Chinese province) or Annam (French protectorate). It is also a name of Vietnam (called by Chinese), however, since Vietnamese gain their independence, the name of Vietnam is Dai Co Viet, Dai Viet, Dai Nam..... not "Annam". In addition, many Vietnamese people don't like this word. So, I suggest that this category be merged into Category:Vietnam. El caballero de los Leones (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- No. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annam. Gryffindor (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with 唐吉訶德的侍從 that it's a bad category name. I also agree with Gryffindor that Category:Annam should be a disambiguation page, not a redirect. Recreate Category:French protectorate of Annam. Create Caegory:Annam (province). Link to both from the disambig page, as well as a link to Category:Vietnam. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Converted to disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
ancien nom ambigu, catégorie renommée, vidée, sans lien, à supprimer Fr.Latreille (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Converted to disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I would like to reduce the number of categories for the supercontinent of "the Americas". No other supercontinents (specifically Afro-Eurasia and Eurasia) have as many categories as there are for the Americas. I think this is a holdover from the time when a user decided to define the Americas as a continent instead of North and South America and went about recategorizing things accordingly. I think the only things categorized under a supercontinent should be things that really cross borders of the continents that compose it.
To start, I propose deleting the categories for establishments and disestablishments by year in the Americas. I'm starting with those because almost all of them contain only subcategories for North and South America. Here is the list of those categories I propose deleting at this time:
Establishments:
- Category:Establishments in the Americas by year
- Category:2014 establishments in the Americas
- Category:2013 establishments in the Americas
- Category:2012 establishments in the Americas
- Category:2011 establishments in the Americas
- Category:2010 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1979 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1978 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1977 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1976 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1975 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1974 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1973 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1972 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1971 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1970 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1893 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1888 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1869 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1868 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1867 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1866 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1865 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1864 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1863 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1862 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1861 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1860 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1859 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1858 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1857 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1856 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1855 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1854 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1853 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1852 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1851 establishments in the Americas
- Category:1850 establishments in the Americas
Disestablishments:
Two categories need a closer look because they contain a category other than for North or South America. Those categories are:
These both contain Category:Granadine Confederation. The Granadine Confederation was a republic that was mostly in South America, but partly in Panama. English Wikipedia categorizes it only under South America, so maybe we could do the same. If not, then maybe it could be categorized under both North and South America separately.
-- Auntof6 (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- All of the above makes sense to me. There's very little reason to categorize by supercontinent. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- No opposition in months, Auntof6. I think you're good to go. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll start work later when I'm on my laptop instead of a tablet. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- No opposition in months, Auntof6. I think you're good to go. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Closing: all categories listed have been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The cat should be renamed to Category:Park Inn by Radisson Berlin Alexanderplatz. the official name was "Park Inn by Radisson Berlin Alexanderplatz", while there is another hotel existed in the same city: "Park Inn by Radisson Berlin City-West " Matthew hk (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Makes sense to use the official name, especially when it helps to disambiguate. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Done: moved to Park Inn Berlin Alexanderplatz. --MB-one (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Should be split into Category:Spaceplanes of the Soviet Union and Category:Spaceplanes of Russia Josh (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- And both would go in Category:Spacecraft of the Soviet Union and Russia ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Nearly all of the 'Soviet Union and Russia' categories should be split likewise. The Soviet Union and Russia are separate and distinct entities. Josh (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: No opposition, if you want to make this change. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Closed (no opposition; split Category:Spaceplanes of the Soviet Union and Russia into Category:Spaceplanes of the Soviet Union and Category:Spaceplanes of Russia (and likewise for other similar categories)) Josh (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Empty category. Delete. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 07:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Doesn't anything that uses Template:PD-Coa-Mexico get placed here? Empty maintenance categories are okay if there is potential for future use. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Closing. @Themightyquill: appears to be correct. I put the {{Empty category}} template on this category. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
There can be no free files in this category because there is no FOP in the USA for sculptures and artworks. The sculpture dates from 2001; Louise Bourgeois died in 2010. Rrburke (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- The images should definitely be deleted, and then the category can either be deleted as empty, or possibly kept to prevent further copyright violation uploads. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes if the images are in breach of copyright (different from the country where I live) then it is surely the images rather than the cat that should go. But maybe not to images where the image is of the building when the sculptures just happen to be in the foreground?Icarusgeek (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Closing. The issue here is with the files, not the category. There is currently one file here (which is not nominated for deletion). If/when the category is empty, it can be deleted at that time. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
We also have the RD "Category:Fotos". Therefore we can delete this one. E4024 (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Deletion since this redirect has 10 images of photos meaning that it is being used and redirects are somewhat cheap. However it could be converted into a DAB, see w:Foto. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep redirecting to Category:Photographs.--Roy17 (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Closing, keep category: redirects are cheap and helpful. Page can be converted to dab if desired without discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
This category was named incorrect, please remove. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Leave it like that, as an RD. --E4024 (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Close: reasonable redirect. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Radisson SAS is a defunct brand, it is now known as "Radisson Blu" The cat Category:Radisson SAS and Category:Radisson Blu Hotels & Resorts Worldwide should merge and drop the excessive suffix. Category:Radisson Blu is sufficient Matthew hk (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose There is no need to discard this category. Radisson SAS did exist and media relating to the old brand name should be categorized accordingly. --MB-one (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Then please at least fix the tree. Some sub cat known as "Radisson Blu foo hotel", but not in both Category:Radisson SAS and Category:Radisson Blu Hotels & Resorts Worldwide cats
- or simply a redirect is a very good solution. Matthew hk (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Done: Rename but not merge as new name too long and not supported by RS. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
deprecated category, there is no R3 in the CR after 2015 rename — Draceane talkcontrib. 14:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Draceane: Generally, Commons collects also media of things which existed in the past and no longer exist. There is a question whether some of the pre-2015 files (eg. maps, schemas and signage diagrams) shouldn't be kept in the Category:Expressway R3 (Czech Republic) category, aw well as we distinguish the "R" sections and "D" sections of the same road. Generally, original categories of renamed, repurposed, requalified, abandoned or abolished subjects may be meaningful, as far as some photos or media can be characteristic for the past period. --ŠJů (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete This route was in planning process only, never existed.Jklamo (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Draceane and Jklamo: If we would have some files specific for that planning period and road status, such a category can make some sense. However, I can see no such file in the category tree. Thus, the category can be redirected to Category:Highway D3 (Czech Republic).
- However, according to this document from 12/2015, the section Třebonín – Kaplice – Nažidla – Dolní Dvořiště should remain (become) R3. Also, Category:Expressway R3 (Czech Republic) should be kept for this section and should be a subcategory of Category:Road I/3 (Czech Republic). The January 2016 reclassification was proposed in 2013 and surely known in 12/2015, also the 12/2015 document should be relevant to the current plans, isn't it? (A možná by bylo lepší o tom taky diskutovat česky, protože ty termíny "expressway" a "highway" nejsou moc přesnými ani vhodnými ekvivalenty našich termínů "rychlostní silnice" a "dálnice", nehledě na to, že složitější argumentaci v angličtině zvládá málokdo z nás a stejně si to asi budeme muset rozhodnout my místní.) --ŠJů (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: There is strong evidence in documents published by ŘSD, that part from Velešín to border crossing would be motorway (D3) as well. Documents from 2018: (complete motorway network, investment plans for South Bohemia region, technical realisation documents section 0312/I, section 0312/II). — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC) (I've noticed certain times that documents published by ŘSD could be self-contradictory.)
- @Draceane: (Btw., the term "motorway" is all the more problematic because it is literally an equivalent of the Czech legal term "silnice pro motorová vozidla", i.e. R roads.). I redirected the category. With the final closing of this discussion, we can wait for 2 weeks, according to Commons:Categories for discussion#Closing a discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: There is strong evidence in documents published by ŘSD, that part from Velešín to border crossing would be motorway (D3) as well. Documents from 2018: (complete motorway network, investment plans for South Bohemia region, technical realisation documents section 0312/I, section 0312/II). — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC) (I've noticed certain times that documents published by ŘSD could be self-contradictory.)
@Draceane, ŠJů, and Jklamo: Closed (per ŠJů) Josh (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
There are various different uses of the word, and their own categories; therefore this is not a correct categorization. E4024 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestion, but i disgree. Would it be better to rename it as ""Sheikhs (head of religious group) by country". I think the current name is better. I would like to mention that sometimes the "title Sheikh" is used to imply more than one meaning at the same time e.g. Head of the Clan/tribe, head of the professional group, The senior person and other uses ...etc. One person maybe the head of a tribe, the religous leader, and the head of a professional group at the same time. I think it would not be proper to put him in all different categories. I would like to mention that the title of Sheikh is used by other senior non-Muslim religious men in the orient as in Coptic Christians and some Arabic Jewish Rabbis. I think leaving it non-specified would help to reach any "Sheikh" when trying to find him in his country category. Kindly advice.--Ashashyou (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Let's hope people with name Sheikh are kept out of this categorization spree. --E4024 (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Sheikhs from Egypt is full of people (or tombs in cases) who have no title "sheikh" in their names. I think I will give up trying to look after Egyptian cats here, too much work. --E4024 (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Ashashyou: Closed (no consensus) Josh (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Category:LG E455 Optimus L5 II Dual already exists, though I thought at first, that 'LG Optimus L5 II Dual' did not, which was the reason for creating this category. I'd like this category ('LG Optimus L5 II Dual') to be deleted, and Category:LG E455 Optimus L5 II Dual renamed to 'LG Optimus L5 II Dual'. Might there be any technical complications with deleting 'LG Optimus L5 II Dual' first, and then renaming 'LG E455 Optimus L5 II Dual' to 'LG Optimus L5 II Dual', which has been deleted? Mardus /talk 11:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- There are two reasons for the possible future category rename of 'LG E455 Optimus L5 II Dual' to 'LG Optimus L5 II Dual': One is because of correct marketing name nomenclature: LG Optimus L5 II Dual was never marketed as 'LG E455 Optimus L5 II Dual'; the E455 model name has always been used separately. The other reason is, that the renamed category could then be better found with an exact-phrase search. -Mardus /talk 11:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mardus: Closed (no objections; empty; redirect to Category:LG E455 Optimus L5 II Dual) Josh (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
This has converted into a WP article. E4024 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- It has some files in it, so I deleted the article content. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Auntof6: Closed (seems resolved now) Josh (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
This must be made a disam page; if not should be deleted. E4024 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Disambig page with Category:Gohar Gasparyan (model) and Category:Gohar Gasparyan (singer). Also Category:Grave of Gohar Gasparyan should be renamed appropriately as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Done though I'm not sure what needs to be done with Category:Grave of Gohar Gasparyan Themightyquill, just because a parent topic is disambiguated doesn't mean a sub topic (as opposed to a sub category) should be disambiguated. Category:Carlisle Barracks isn't disambiguated even though the city in Pennyslvania clearly isn't primary for Category:Carlisle. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Crouch, Swale. I thought disambiguating the grave would make sense when we have two people with the same name. If no one else thinks its a good idea, I won't insist. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- The model is still alive so has no grave to disambiguate from, similar to the fact that the Cumbrian Carlisle has no barracks to disambiguate from. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think all the subcategories should be disambiguated as well: the grave of one and the "by year" category of the other. Even if there is currently no media of a grave for the model (because she's still alive), there eventually could be. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes the "by year" category should be disambiguated (there is a deletion request at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01/Category:Gohar Gasparyan by year though) but I don't think that the rule of matching the parent category applies with sub topics (a different topic that has a category) as opposed to sub categories (a category like Foo in Norfolk). Otherwise we'd include "Pennsylvania" in Category:Carlisle Barracks, however since the other may end up with a grave that we have images for, maybe we should just IAR and move it anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Crouch, Swale. I thought disambiguating the grave would make sense when we have two people with the same name. If no one else thinks its a good idea, I won't insist. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I opened the discussion and caused a lot of work. Now that it is about to be closed, I see that the singer images (2 of 3) are DR'ed. (The other one is not PD either.) So possibly we will again have only one Gohar Gasparyan here. --E4024 (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, we still have the grave images. --E4024 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@E4024, Themightyquill, Auntof6, and Crouch, Swale: Closed (Category:Gohar Gasparyan changed to dab, if there are still issues with related cats, a new CfD can be opened for each) Josh (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Mmmh, one can not count food. Jotzet (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Food is an uncountable noun (one item of food?) but it's also pretty ambigous. Is a bowl of stew "one item of food" or a mixture of many? Is a slice of cake one item of food or is a whole cake one item of food? One potato or bean is one item, but so are many potatoes/beans mashed? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- If I see a picture like File:貼るエコポッカ (3394978364).jpg in a subcat of this cat, I only wish it is deleted. (I know it is not the best comment one can contribute, but alas...) --E4024 (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is a very worrisome problem. - Count and Non-Count Nouns
But I think, Something parent-category (of food) is necessary. I hope you have another good category-name. Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC) - As one example, Category:Snack foods by country is countable (plural). --Benzoyl (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- In that usage, foods refers to types of food. For the same reason, we have Category:Bread by Category:Breads by type. But I assuming you wouldn't want this photo in Category:One food just because they are all one snack food. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Groups of food is fine, but for counted amounts, it should be clear what is being counted, so something like this:
- Category:Groups of pieces of food (food divided in such a way as each piece is separated/distinct for each other piece)
- @Jotzet, Themightyquill, and Benzoyl: Comments? Josh (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- It's definitely not perfect, but I suppose it could work if someone wants to go to that effort. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the very clear idea. I agree these categorizing. --Benzoyl (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Benzoyl and Themightyquill: Closed (no objection; organize per proposal) Josh (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Vague categorization, like most cats with singular title. E4024 (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Agree the cat is rather vague, but various subcategories seem useful and specific enough. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Infrogmation. It has a a singular title because it's about a general concept, allowing for related sub-categories which aren't examples of specifical social classes. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Closing as kept, no additional discussion for 11 months, and more crucially no suggestions offered for any renaming/reorganizing alternatives. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
We have no such cat for other countries. As there are two files in there, I have a difficulty in understanding the need for this cat, other than my difficulty in understanding why we have several cats like this "unique" to the case of Israel... I recommend and propose the deletion of this cat. E4024 (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Now there is only one file in the cat and I will get it (the unnecessary cat) deleted as there is no opposition or suggestions. --E4024 (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Category in scope. Tm (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- The point is that we have an article in he.wiki - "Modeling in Israel" (דוגמנות בישראל). The files in this category qualify to this article. -- Geagea (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Close as Kept, now useful and used, not a problem. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Smartphone zombies is known to be pejorative in the language of English and "people using smartphones" with other categories for signs more likely to be helpful. Some subjects have not consented to labelling of "zombie" and some may have serious mental health conditions such as internet addiction disorder. --E.3 (Talk to Dr Peter James Chisholm). I sometimes don't understand rules, and I think abstractly. [3] 13:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- @E.3: An alternative title that's inclusive of both images of pedestrians walking while looking at smartphones and signs related to this activity? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to the objective, non-judgmental Category:People walking with smartphones, an intersection of Category:People with smartphones and Category:Walking people. --Animalparty (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree on renaming, but I prefer Category:People using mobile phones while walking, which would ideally be a subcategory of Category:People using mobile phones (which is currently a redirection). --ghouston (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- It would change the meaning of the category a little, since files like File:Bicycle in The Hague 41.JPG would be in scope, but maybe don't show "zombies". --ghouston (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree in principle that the name could be better, but the category is not meant to capture someone walking while talking on their phone. We'd at least to have Category:People looking at mobile/mobile phones while walking. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, Category:People looking at mobile phones while walking would be fine. --ghouston (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree in principle that the name could be better, but the category is not meant to capture someone walking while talking on their phone. We'd at least to have Category:People looking at mobile/mobile phones while walking. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- The category has been renamed by E.3 to Category:People walking with smartphones in the meantime. Should we leave it that and close the discussion? --ghouston (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Closed, redirected to Category:People walking with smartphones, better NPOV descriptive name. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
This Cfd is for both Adam and Eve. It's about a proposal name change into respectively Adam (mythology) and Eve (mythology) (or mythological characters) to leave Adam and Eve free as disambiguation category. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support since both w:Adam and w:Eve refer to the names, not the individuals it is highly confusing to have different PTs here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: By my reading, w:Adam and w:Eve refer to the individuals, whereas en:Adam (given name) and en:Eve (name) refer to the names, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes it seems that they are both about the names of some kind, my point still stands about the need for disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: By my reading, w:Adam and w:Eve refer to the individuals, whereas en:Adam (given name) and en:Eve (name) refer to the names, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is necessary. Category:Old Testament figures is full of names like this. Category:Adam (given name) does the job of disambiguating quite well. If we do disambiguate, using Category:Adam (bible) or Category:Adam (biblical figure) might be less controversial than "mythological characters", though I realize it's a question of semantics. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Correct me if I am wrong, but in general, if a title has multiple uses, the title itself should be a dab, with each use having dab info in () in their category name. Only in cases where one use is clearly far and away the go-to for the name should we give that use priority of place (some cities are like this). In this case while the biblical figure may be the most common use of the name Adam, there are plenty of other common uses, so I am incined to agree on this one that it should follow the normal process. The same goes for Eve, and probably some of the other figures as well. Josh (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 | Warning! Unrecognized change parameter specified (Adam). Please change to a valid type (dab, delete, keep, merge, move, redirect, see also). |
| Warning! Unrecognized change parameter specified (Eve). Please change to a valid type (dab, delete, keep, merge, move, redirect, see also). |
| Warning! Unrecognized change parameter specified (Adam). Please change to a valid type (dab, delete, keep, merge, move, redirect, see also). |
| Warning! Unrecognized change parameter specified (Eve). Please change to a valid type (dab, delete, keep, merge, move, redirect, see also). |
- @Joshbaumgartner: Fair enough. Do you want to propose this for the other relevant sub-categories of Category:Old Testament figures here, or a separate CFD? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yes, I think this should be precedential in that what we do for Adam & Eve we should apply consistently to other similar situations. Josh (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've added the CFD tag to a number of other relevant sub-categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yes, I think this should be precedential in that what we do for Adam & Eve we should apply consistently to other similar situations. Josh (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with the base names being dabs. Also, "Bible" and "Biblical" should be capitalized wherever they're used. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Moved to "x (Biblical figure). Dab pages coming soon. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Sub category names and content needs to be better defined for this category. There are two main styles used for sub-category names:
- National symbols of XXX (used by 9 categories)
- Symbols of XXX national identity (used by 3 categories)
Also, as for content, should content be limited to official depictions such as flags, banners, seals, badges, and such, or should the objects themselves, such as prominent mountains (Category:Mount Ararat) or famous birds (Category:Bald eagles) be categorized here as well? Category:Symbols of Armenian national identity has several of the latter type and was raised in an earlier discussion:
| Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/11/Category:Symbols of Armenian national identity |
|---|
| Overcategorization. There is already category about Armenian symbols. Title is original resarch. Δαβίδ (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC) |
Recommend we rename sub-cats to "National symbols of XXX" format and limit categories to official depictions. Official depictions of Mount Ararat which are used as national symbols should be under this category, but not Mount Ararat itself. Josh (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with your concerns. (Ah, maybe we could make a special categorization for "Expansionist national symbols"; of course if we can find enough countries other than Armenia... :) --E4024 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: There was also this discussion: Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/11/Category:Symbols of Jewish national identity. I worry about various sub-categories of Category:Flags of ethnic groups that might be symbols of "national identity" of a people but not necessarily symbols of a place. For the most part, however, the contents of this category could be moved. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: It seems an odd quirk of the language that "national" is the adjectival form of both "nation" and "country". Country is very specific and nation more broad in its meaning and use, but it is hard to make this distinction with only one word for an adjective. So I agree that "national" is hard to keep constrained to identifying images of a country and I'm not sure of a good solution to that. Separate note--I think this weekend I'll be able to attack some of the CfD backlog and those you've pinged me on. Josh (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: There was also this discussion: Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/11/Category:Symbols of Jewish national identity. I worry about various sub-categories of Category:Flags of ethnic groups that might be symbols of "national identity" of a people but not necessarily symbols of a place. For the most part, however, the contents of this category could be moved. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Δαβίδ, E4024, and Themightyquill: Closed (standardize sub-cat format to "National symbols of country", restrict to designs and depictions, not sources of symbols) Josh (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I understand we should leave "Imams" and "Rabbis" out of this. Please also consider Category:Christian clergy by type. E4024 (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- The above mentioned cat has only two subcats, while everybody other than imams and rabbis in "this" (discussed) cat are Christians. Please note that even Category:Ministers (Christianity) is not under Category:Christian clergy by type. Religion is a sea I do not know well, probably I'm trying to swim in dangerous waters... --E4024 (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the nomination. I've moved all the Christian-only clergy types to [:Category:Christian clergy by type]]. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know why imams and rabbis don't belong (the rabbi category is actually still here), but I'll take your word for it. I see categories for monks and nuns here: I don't think they are clergy. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@E4024, Themightyquill, and Auntof6: Closed (appears resolved de facto) Josh (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Problematic cat opened for one person, at least by now. It is under Category:Actors from Wales. What if Tom Cruise knows or learns this language? I do not agree with this categorization. E4024 (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. "Actors who also speak Welsh" is different than "Welsh-language writers". I've tagged Category:Welsh-speaking people by occupation because it should also be deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. How much of a language would a person need to know for us to say they speak it? Let's get rid of these before we have to categorize all the polyglots by every language they know! --Auntof6 (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@E4024, Auntof6, and Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; delete) Josh (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Only two people here who can simply be categorized under their own nationality and whatever other descent they may have. (One of them has some 5 or 6. :) E4024 (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've also tagged Category:Actors of Greek descent, Category:Actors of Indian decent, Category:Actors of Italian descent, and Category:Canadian actors of Indian decent for deletion. I don't think people's cultural ancestry, often mixed, is usually important to their work. Once we start subcategorizing every occupation by nationality and ethnicity, we won't have time for anything else. - Themightyquill (talk)
- Note: If these are kept, we need to fix the spelling on the "Indian decent" ones. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@E4024, Themightyquill, and Auntof6: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Totally wrong. Şehzades were sent to represent the Sultan at several provincial capitals like Manisa and Amasya but the categorization does not represent the correct administrative partition of the Empire. I am not an expert on Ottoman history and administrative structure. Therefore I humbly request the deletion of this wrong categorization until someone with expertise can make a better job. Just for information, I was thinking of making a cat on the "seemingly simple" category "Cities of the Ottoman Empire" but not have dared to begin until now. Indeed without having that "mother" any birth of such a cat -the one that I opened to discussion for its deletion- is premature. Thanks for supporting me. E4024 (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The presence is correct. existing category interwiki .tr Pivox (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@E4024 and Pivox: Closed (no consensus) Josh (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Ich habe eine Taschenuhr vom Bundesschiessen 1900 in Dresden .War das ein Siegerpreis? 46.86.133.46 10:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Bitte viele möglichst gute und hochaufgelöste Fotos mit gut erkennbaren Einzelheiten und Details fertigen und hier bei Commons hochladen. Gruß aus dem Wikipedia-Büro Hannover. You are welcome. Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bernd Schwabe in Hannover: Closed (no change to category) Josh (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
All "United Soccer Leagues" categories should be renamed to reflect the new brand, "United Soccer League". They announced a rebrand back in September, and at this point the new branding seems to be in full effect.
Confusingly, the league now known as "USL Championship" used to be known as "United Soccer League" before the rebrand. The USLC categories have all been moved to the new name, but the redirects still remain, blocking this move. Because USL is the parent organization of USLC, I don't think it will cause too much confusion if we eliminate these redirects (the corresponding "USL Championship" category should be plainly visible as a sub-category in every case). IagoQnsi (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear, this is the full list of moves I'm proposing:
- United Soccer Leagues —> United Soccer League
- United Soccer Leagues logos —> United Soccer League logos
- United Soccer Leagues SVG logos —> United Soccer League SVG logos
- Logos of United Soccer Leagues teams —> Logos of United Soccer League teams
- SVG logos of United Soccer Leagues teams —> SVG logos of United Soccer League teams
- United Soccer Leagues teams —> United Soccer League teams
- United Soccer Leagues USL wordmark —> United Soccer League USL wordmark
- You can see that most of the new names already exist, but all of them are simply redirects to corresponding USL Championship categories. FWIW, the category United Soccer League executives is already named according to my proposed convention. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Blaixx (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@IagoQnsi and Blaixx: Closed (no objections) Josh (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Do we need this cat? Defense Meteo Sattelite Program should not be the child of this cat. Sanandros (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- A DMSP satellite was the payload on this flight, so the payload would be the child category rather than the rocket being the child of the program. I'm fine with removing the DMSP category from this launch cat, but I see no reason to delete the category itself. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is that the entire DMSP program was not on this flight, so Category:Defense Meteorological Satellite Program does not belong under it. If you have media for the specific sattelite which was carried on on this launch, then it would belong here. Aside from that though, I see no reason to delete this category itself. Josh (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Sanandros and Huntster: This seems resolved with the removal of DMSP. Can we close this at this point? Josh (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Yes for me that's fine.--Sanandros (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Sanandros and Huntster: This seems resolved with the removal of DMSP. Can we close this at this point? Josh (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- The problem is that the entire DMSP program was not on this flight, so Category:Defense Meteorological Satellite Program does not belong under it. If you have media for the specific sattelite which was carried on on this launch, then it would belong here. Aside from that though, I see no reason to delete this category itself. Josh (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Was resolved by disassociating the two categories. – BMacZero (🗩) 06:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
There is another Roberto Esposito, although not as forthcoming. Something must be done. E4024 (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Now I added another one: Category:Roberto Esposito (pianista). --E4024 (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with you, something must be done :) When I created the category for the philosopher, I should have imagined there would be several "Roberto Esposito", it's a rather common name. I am not sure how it works on Commons, but if it is possible, I suggest that we create a page of homonymy and that we rename Category:Roberto Esposito in Category:Roberto Esposito (philosopher). Is this correct ? --Wikinade (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I guess so. Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Roberto Esposito (philosopher) and disambiguated. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Do we need this cat? Defense Meteo Sattelite Program should not be the child of this cat. Sanandros (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- A DMSP satellite was the payload on this flight, so the payload would be the child category rather than the rocket being the child of the program. I'm fine with removing the DMSP category from this launch cat, but I see no reason to delete the category itself. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Sanandros and Huntster: This seems resolved with the removal of DMSP. Can we close this at this point? Josh (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Yes for me that's fine. I removed aslo one overcat with Atlas V.--Sanandros (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Sanandros and Huntster: This seems resolved with the removal of DMSP. Can we close this at this point? Josh (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Child category was removed as above. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Category for the article "Gothic belly dance" in English Wikipedia. I propose moving it to the same name with the article. E4024 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- I moved it to Category:Gothic belly dance and added a link to Wikidata of the same-name WP article. As there were no objections in almost two years, I took it as a silent approval. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Done - Moved and closed as above. --E4024 (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for the existence of this category, since Leh is a town, so any media related to its geography most probably should be categorized elsewhere, namely in Category:Geography of Ladakh, to which Leh belongs already indirectly. Stegop (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 | Category:Geography of Leh | Move to/Rename as | Category:Geography of Ladakh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | per nom by Stegop (talk · contribs); the maps cover a lot more tha Leh and do not even focus on Leh. Upmerge these at a minimum. | |||
 | Josh (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
Stale discussion. Thanks, user:Joshbaumgartner! I am bold and I removed the nominated category from two images (File:2 2 himal tecto units.png and File:2 6 tectomap2.png). The empty category is waiting to be deleted. Just in case noticing user:Stegop --Estopedist1 (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: have as cat redirect. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
The cat should renamed to category:Park Plaza Hotels & Resorts , as the description of the cat stated the cat is for the hotel chain, not individual hotels that not related to the chain. The latter probably suit another cat: Category:Hotels named Park Plaza Matthew hk (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion. The result was rename. Enwiki has same solution Estopedist1 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
While chimney and smokestack may be interchangeable, in some contexts, in others they aren't. Steamships have smokestacks, they never have "chimneys". Now, in 2019, none of the subcategories of chimney has a nautical application. So, I think the original merge was in error. Geo Swan (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I was pinged on this. Any outcome here is fine with me. - Jmabel ! talk 16:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Can we have a source for ships never having chimneys? Because, see:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funnel_(ship) "A funnel is the smokestack or chimney on a ship used to expel boiler steam ..."
- https://www.shutterstock.com/search/ship+chimney
- https://www.google.com/search?q=define+smokestack "a chimney or funnel for discharging smoke from a locomotive, ship, factory, etc."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimney " Chimneys may be found in buildings, steam locomotives and ships. "
- http://www.steamboats.com/museum/engineroom.html " Imagine how it must have been-paddlewheels noisily creaking and splashing, crude steam engine shaking the deck, black sooty smoke belching from the chimney "
- https://books.google.com/books?id=KYQyAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA606 "... if section 24 did not apply to the chimney or funnel of a steam-tug plying on the Thames"
- So while I'm not against having a nautical subcategory, say Funnel (ship), I would think it would be a subcategory of Chimneys --GRuban (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Ships' funnels would be as acceptable to me as Category:Ships' smokestacks. Category:Ships' chimneys would seem like fingernails on chalkboard. Geo Swan (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I am going to @Stunteltje: , a contributor who has had wise opinions on nautical matters for a decade or so. Geo Swan (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- As a start, I've added a single sentence to the chimney paragraph referring people to "smokestack industries" and the historic impacts of environmental pollution this term brings up. I would add much more like the relationship to climate change impacts from the industrial burning of fossil fuels but its clear that this article and whomever suceeded in redirecting smokestacks here should be at best reversed so that the historic development of pollution can be placed in context. Note all the pretty pictures of modern smokestacks rather than the historic ones showing acid rain and cities so polluted by clouds of coal dust that the general readership would not even connect this subject to one of the most controversial environmental issues of the 20th century. Lastly, the referral to smokestack industry article and that it itself is not more than a sentence implies just how much damage this slight of word manipulation is, again, leaving general readers with a dead end if they were looking for any kind of help in understanding this subject.Energynet (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Closed (currently redirected, no consensus to change redirection; if further discussion warranted, new CfD can be raised) Josh (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@Geo Swan, Jmabel, GRuban, and Energynet: Seemed simpler than it was. Currently the parent category is Category:Exhaust systems with Category:Chimneys (presumably for structural exhaust systems) and Category:Engine exhaust systems (presumably for vehicular exhaust systems). Figured I would re-open and ask if this setup is acceptable at this point or if further discussion was warranted. Josh (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- A year later! I'm ok with what we have now, with Category:Funnels (ship part) under Category:Chimneys of vehicles under both Category: Chimneys and Category:Vehicle exhausts. --GRuban (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Not done: people seem fine with things as they are right now. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Discuss per form please. E4024 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: Can you please elaborate? What's the issue? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Only one file in the cat and uploaded recently. All the info, links etc -coming from before- have little to do and are a loss of space for one pic. Clean up the cat if it is to be retained; for me it would better be deleted. --E4024 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @E4024 and Themightyquill: any new idea, what to do with this one-member (File:Ziyadar mükafatı.jpg) category. If I am correct, then the award is depicted as de minimis in this file. Maybe we recategorise the image, and empty category to be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: If the award is not notable and the image is out of scope, the image can be deleted. I don't read azeri so I'm not much help here. -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Azerbaijani Wikipedia has article about the award: az:Ziyadar, and the image is used there.--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: everything can be bulldozed. see az:Vikipediya:Silinməyə_namizəd_səhifələr/Arxiv/2021_İyul#Ziyadar_(mükafat): "non-encyclopedic award (diploma) given by a non-encyclopedic institution (the "Writers" magazine) — Toghrul R 11:36, 10 iyun 2021 (UTC)" RZuo (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Azerbaijani Wikipedia has article about the award: az:Ziyadar, and the image is used there.--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Seems that this is not a productive way to split the parent cat (Category:Letters with font lines), and the specification, «non-Unicode», is not robust without a date. Indeed most of these characters are already/meanwhile in (or will be soon added to) Unicode; those which are not are likely rather cases of specific glyphic variations (at least according to Unicode’s definitions concerning unification and canonical equivalence). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear, my proposal is as follows:
- This category, as such, is deleted.
- A more generic category:non-Unicode characters is created, to gather all those oddballs (not only character images but also usage examples and media covering discussions of the subject), complemented with caveat text and {{Empty category}}.
- Category:Letters with font lines to be dissiminated into subcats that follow the parent’s focus on graphical aspects — e.g.:
- Category:Latin letters with font lines (incl. Category:Fraktur letters with font lines), Category:Cyrillic letters with font lines, Category:Greek letters with font lines, et c.
- Category:Upper- and lower-case pairs with font lines, Category:Letters with font lines (single letters), et c.
- Category:Letters with font lines (handwriting), et c.
- Comment: Turns out that category:non-Unicode characters already existed, as category:Unencoded characters. I created a redirect and categorized all files in the cat under discussion as both category:Unencoded characters and Category:Letters with font lines. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Didn't noice that discussion, but I've already made some classification of the categorized files now. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion it is a specific CFD. @Tuvalkin: I guess you can implement your improvements. It is unlike that someone opposes--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- Done -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- Formally closed. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
or better Sculptures from lime wood and consistently for others Oursana (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- To clarify, you're suggesting renaming all the sub-categories of Category:Wooden sculptures by wood type to match the form "Sculptures from X wood" ? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't feel strongly either way (I followed the parent Category:Tilia (wood) in art when I created the cat), so presumably that should also change?Icarusgeek (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- My proposal has less to do with grammar, than with the usual wording “lime wood”, as Tilia wood is not used by any museums description--Oursana (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't feel strongly either way (I followed the parent Category:Tilia (wood) in art when I created the cat), so presumably that should also change?Icarusgeek (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you and sorry for my late response. I agree completely with your suggestionsOursana (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Wudu, midhats (subcat, whose subcats begin with "midha" for some reason)... I understand they are Arabic words for some Islamic concepts. Alright, the language of Koran is Arabic, but not that of all moslems are. In Turkey we have not heard these words, I myself saw them only today. I doubt many non-Arab moslems know these things. When I saw "Wudu" -frankly- at first I thought it was something magical... Please let us leave some of these concepts to Arabic Wiki. If I have used unnecessary Turkish words also let us change them to "(whatever English common name) ... in Turkey" . E4024 (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- This would mean merging and redirecting Category:Wudu to Category:Ablution in Islam. I'd support this. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024 and HyperGaruda: Ablution is not limited to feet, so it would also upmerge to Category:Feet washing. Redirect of Category:Wudu to Category:Ablution in Islam makes sense. Josh (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Ablution in Islam per consensus. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Most of the categories here use "Highland council area" instead of "Highland (council area) while the articles and categories on WP use "Foo (council area)", see w:Category:Highland (council area). The other 2 categories here of Category:Falkirk council area and Category:Stirling council area use the term without brackets. While Commons categories are often different to the WP article and category when disambiguation is needed, its less common in other cases since we tend to go by what they have unless we think its incorrect (since after all we are an independent project, even though we don't want to repeat debates resulted there). @Rodhullandemu: who has had much involvement here. IMO consistency for the Highland tree is desirable here but if we use "Highland council area" it might be worth looking to see if the WP articles and categories should be renamed per W:WP:NATURAL. Also note that the {{Council areas of Scotland}} is producing 2 entries for Highland, one linking "Highland council area" and one "Highland (council area). Which probably needs to be fixed for the others since redirects will be needed (especially if WP uses those titles). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- The {{Council areas of Scotland}} fix was intended to be temporary pending harmonisation of all categories under Category:Highland council area; that way links are preserved pro tem. As for the category, I see no need for unnecessary brackets. Category:Highland council area is perfectly clear without them. We are experts on categorisations here, since we do it all the time, whereas en:WP seems to make it up as they go along. They make gazillions of mistakes, so shouldn't be regarded as authoritative. And, TBH, any project that still has me blocked seven years later and hasn't realised how counter-productive that is doesn't deserve my respect. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- The comment about following WP was in largely in response to you're comment on my talk page about the fact that I moved Shetland>Shetland Islands after a discussion on WP that was nearly a decade old. As noted while the OS and Britannica uses "Orkney Islands" and "Shetland Islands", they use just "Highland"[4][5]. If we to use the version without brackets shouldn't it be Category:Highland Council Area instead like Category:Warwick District? Obviously Orkney/Shetland Islands and Highland are different in that Highland clearly requires disambiguation but Orkney/Shetland Islands are far less ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is some discussion on the name at w:Highland (council area)#Name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on this. Just do whatever you think will improve Commons. Multichill (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Disambiguation in the title should parenthetical after the natural title, which by w:Highland (council area)#Name appears to actually be 'the Highlands' in natural speak. One might say, "I live in the Highlands.", or rather formally state, "I live in the Highland Council area.", but would not say, "I live in Highland.". Thus:
| Proposal A | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:Highland (council area) | Move to/Rename as | Category:Highlands (council area) | |
| Category:Aerial photographs of Highland council area | Move to/Rename as | Category:Aerial photographs of the Highlands (council area) | |
- Naturally other subs would be likewise renamed. @Rodhullandemu and Crouch, Swale: comments? Josh (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: "The Highlands" and " Highland council area" are not coterminous and so are not interchangeable. The Highlands includes the Council Areas of Angus and Moray. Highland council area does not. "The Highlands" distinguishes the north of Scotland from the south, known as "The Lowlands". "Highlands council area" is not a legally recognised term in the local government structure of Scotland. So, I'm sorry, but your proposal is simply incorrect. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough... drop the 's'. Josh (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Rodhullandemu is correct, the council area is not written with an "s" and covers different areas anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough... drop the 's'. Josh (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: "The Highlands" and " Highland council area" are not coterminous and so are not interchangeable. The Highlands includes the Council Areas of Angus and Moray. Highland council area does not. "The Highlands" distinguishes the north of Scotland from the south, known as "The Lowlands". "Highlands council area" is not a legally recognised term in the local government structure of Scotland. So, I'm sorry, but your proposal is simply incorrect. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
| Proposal B | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Category:Highland (council area) | Keep | ||
| Category:Aerial photographs of Highland council area | Move to/Rename as | Category:Aerial photographs of Highland (council area) | |
- @Joshbaumgartner: I don't understand this obsession Wikipedia has with brackets. Taxonomically, brackets mean "is a". "Highland" is too imprecise a term to be usable for a category, whereas "Highland council area" (like Falkirk council area and Stirling council area) is beyond doubt as to its meaning. It does not need any brackets. The only difference is that Falkirk and Stirling are also cities/towns and Highland is not, but we still need to use "council area" to achieve the precision I mentioned earlier. Rodhullandemu (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Obsession or not, that is the standard method of including disambiguation information in the name of a category on Commons. Commons is not bound by the taxonomic standard you claim, so that isn't really relevant to the matter. If you want to change this very high-level policy, then by all means feel free to launch that discussion, but that would need to be discussed on a much broader basis than a CfD such as this one. We are also not bound to exactly represent official names, though they should be an important guidance for us. Commons category names should be naturally readable, commonly understood names with disambiguation information in parenthesis as appropriate. Josh (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- In any case I think we need consistency with Stirling and Falkirk, while they might not be completely comparable because people are more likely to need to disambiguate a council area named after a settlement than one named after a geographical area. I would lean towards using "Highland (council area)" per WP since sources like the OS and EB but indeed the term without brackets is recognizable to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: Indeed, consistency within Category:Council areas of Scotland is a valid reason to seek a name change. I would agree that either all council areas should either include "council area" in their name (e.g. Category:Highland council area) or only have parenthetical dab info when needed to differentiate their base name from other categories (e.g. Category:Highland (council area). It is having some one way and some the other that is the biggest problem, and, like you, I would lean toward the parenthetical dab info as the prefered method as per your citations and as being the most inline with other Commons category names. Josh (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: yes or proposal C but indeed I'd go with A but use the singular since its a proper noun. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: Indeed, consistency within Category:Council areas of Scotland is a valid reason to seek a name change. I would agree that either all council areas should either include "council area" in their name (e.g. Category:Highland council area) or only have parenthetical dab info when needed to differentiate their base name from other categories (e.g. Category:Highland (council area). It is having some one way and some the other that is the biggest problem, and, like you, I would lean toward the parenthetical dab info as the prefered method as per your citations and as being the most inline with other Commons category names. Josh (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- In any case I think we need consistency with Stirling and Falkirk, while they might not be completely comparable because people are more likely to need to disambiguate a council area named after a settlement than one named after a geographical area. I would lean towards using "Highland (council area)" per WP since sources like the OS and EB but indeed the term without brackets is recognizable to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Obsession or not, that is the standard method of including disambiguation information in the name of a category on Commons. Commons is not bound by the taxonomic standard you claim, so that isn't really relevant to the matter. If you want to change this very high-level policy, then by all means feel free to launch that discussion, but that would need to be discussed on a much broader basis than a CfD such as this one. We are also not bound to exactly represent official names, though they should be an important guidance for us. Commons category names should be naturally readable, commonly understood names with disambiguation information in parenthesis as appropriate. Josh (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I don't understand this obsession Wikipedia has with brackets. Taxonomically, brackets mean "is a". "Highland" is too imprecise a term to be usable for a category, whereas "Highland council area" (like Falkirk council area and Stirling council area) is beyond doubt as to its meaning. It does not need any brackets. The only difference is that Falkirk and Stirling are also cities/towns and Highland is not, but we still need to use "council area" to achieve the precision I mentioned earlier. Rodhullandemu (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
| Proposal C | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:Highland (council area) | Move to/Rename as | Category:Highlands Council Area | |
| Category:Aerial photographs of Highland council area | Move to/Rename as | Category:Aerial photographs of Highland Council Area | |
- Support Proposal C but with "Highland" and without "the". "Highland Council Area" is a perfecly adequate noun phrase for what we mean to say. Can we just get on with this? Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I agree with removing the the like Category:Maps of Babergh District rather than Category:Maps of the Babergh District. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Adjusted. I'm all for moving forward, but we should at minimum allow the two week period to elapse for further comments before closing. Josh (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Especially given we might be better sticking with "Highland (council area)" per the 31 January 2020 comment. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Adjusted. I'm all for moving forward, but we should at minimum allow the two week period to elapse for further comments before closing. Josh (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I agree with removing the the like Category:Maps of Babergh District rather than Category:Maps of the Babergh District. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe the status quo is OK, the set categories are effectively descriptive titles while the topic category is a proper noun. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | This is a 5 year old CfD where the last comment is from 4 years ago. So it's clearly stale and there's no consensus to change things. Therefore I'm closing the CfD as with that as the outcome. I think the last comment makes sense anyway. Although anyone who disagrees with me is free to revisit this at a later time with a clearer justification for why the change should be made by starting a new CfD. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC) | |||