Commons:Categories for discussion

  This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced admins.
Please remove this notice if it won't be needed in the future.

---

Shortcut:
COM:CFD

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

Archives /Archive

This page provides a centralized place to discuss the naming convention of categories. Currently the naming conventions for categories are spread over the following pages:

• Commons:Rename a category
• Commons:Categories
• Commons:Naming categories, which is still a draft [Completely rejected, unworkable; see Talk page for acceptable suggestions]
• Commons:By location category scheme, a "proposed Commons guideline or policy" [inactive discussion, scheme rejected for general use]
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (from the English Wikipedia)

Alternatives

• For simple category rename requests, one can put the {{Move|New name|Reason|2012-05-22}} template in the source category. These can be discussed on the categories talk page or Category talk:Requested moves.
• For non-controversial requests, e.g. inappropriate use of capital letters or plurals you may file a request at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands.
• Deletion requests for categories are also found in Category:Non-media deletion requests. These should be listed here as well.

Listing a single category on this "Categories for discussion" page

You can simply visit a category. Then press the button discuss category in your toolbar. Or:

I.	Add {{subst:cfd}} tag:
	Add the following code to the top of the category page. {{subst:cfd}} The easiest way for doing the next steps II, III and IV: After saving the category with {{subst:cfd}} the template will have created a link on cyan background. Click it (for step II), the template will create a subpage with instructions for editing and links (you must open it in new tabs or windows) for further steps.
II.	Create a subpage of "Categories for discussion" :
	Enter the name of the category that you wish to nominate for discussion, click on "Create the subpage", and follow the instructions given there. (eg Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/02/Category:Comics)
III.	Add a link to the sub-page in the "Discussion Request Log":
	To make your discussion visible here you have to add the newly created sub-page to Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/05. The log is sorted by date. Add the following code at the bottom without erasing the existing requests. Remember to save the page. {{Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/05/Category: CATEGORY-NAME }} (Where CATEGORY-NAME is the name of the category you tagged with {{cfd}}.) (eg {{Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/02/Category:Comics}})
IV.	Notify the creator with {{cdw}} tag:
	Sometimes it makes sense to notify the creator of a category on their talk page. Use the notify text suggest in the box at the top of the sub-page created in (II) above. {{subst:cdw|Category:CATEGORY-NAME}} --~~~~ (Where CATEGORY-NAME is the name of the category you tagged with {{cfd}}.) (eg {{subst:cdw|Category:Comics}} --~~~~)

Listing multiple categories on this "Categories for discussion" page

Perform all the operations above for the first category, then tag all the other related categories with

{{subst:cfd|Category: FIRST-CATEGORY-NAME }}

(eg {{subst:cfd|Category:Comics}} to category:Comic strips)

Note that if you want to have modifications in this list appear in your watchlist, for each new month and for each new item in the list you want to watch, you have to open the item for editing and click the watch tab.

Note that the {{cdw}} tag notifying the creators is not fully adapted to multiple discussion.

Closing a discussion

Typically, only users experienced in category discussions should close a discussion. However, if the discussion has led to a very clear consensus, other users should feel free to do so.

The following is the normal process to close a discussion. Not all steps are necessarily required nor need they be done on the same day, but in general this is the appropriate order.

1. Generally, wait at least two weeks since the discussion was started.
2. Assess the discussion, write a conclusion on the subpage; use "----" on a line above your conclusion to separate it from the general discussion.
3. Add {{cfdh}} and {{cfdf}} to the subpage
4. If necessary, make the relevant changes to categories (e.g. rename the categories, request the category renames at User talk:Category-bot, add {{category redirect|preferred name}} to the no longer used category name or synonyms, add {{speedy}} to empty categories (for misspellings and the like)). Alternatively, wait for the initiator to do it.
5. Remove the cfd notice from the categories pages and cross-reference the discussion on the category talk page(s), e.g.
   {{Archive box|*[[Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/Category:Drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen|Categories for discussion (10/2009)]]}}.
6. Remove the subpage from the month page (e.g. Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10)
7. Add the subpage to the month page at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive.
8. Update category descriptions or Commons:Categories if needed.

Current Requests

May 2012

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~ On the log, add: {{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Sheffield to Hull Line

Reasons for discussion request --

• NB similar issues raised on the english wikipedia page en:Sheffield to Hull Line - maybe some of the problems come from that article being (seemingly) innacurate..
• This "line" is really a railway service - it includes several named railway lines including the Hull and Selby railway, and others I am not 100% certain of, which may not have categories. The sub-category "Trains on the .." is entirely valid - provided it is used for trains performing that service - however it doesn't make sense for other train services operating over part of the same route.. (hope that makes sense)
• I removed some sub-categories relating to train services to Scunthorpe - this just didn't make sense - Scunthorpe is nowhere near on any scheduled Sheffield to Hull service. eg Category:Althorpe railway station and similar
• The service also includes trains via Selby http://www.northernrail.org/pdfs/timetables/20111211/30.pdf .. (complicates things even more)

It just needs cleaning up, by someone who knows what lines are what. I can't do this at the moment. I would guess the best way would be to have mostly categories not images in this cateogory for different sections of the line. However there are issues if the service changes route.. Maybe someone else has better suggestions. Oranjblud (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - See comment for Hull to York Line. Ravenseft (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you have comprehended the whole issue - the issue is not "keep/delete" - the issue is that the contents of the category appear to be a mess - with no explanation of when or why a particular image should be in this category.

- one issue is that the line is ill defined - Network rail doesn't use the term. The only usage I could find was for a 'Hull to Sheffield service' operated by Northern rail - which does not use one specific line.

The additional problem, which I will repeat - is that for some reason currently inexplicable to me this category has been used for trains between Goole and Lincoln (or maybe Scunthorpe)- there is no way this can be considered part of a line from Hull to Sheffield, either historically or currently.

It needs some discussion as to what and how and when images should be placed in this category, including what constitutes a valid category - given the seeming confusion on what the so called 'line' includes eg why is "crowle station" in the category http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Crowle_railway_station&oldid=65568864 - this is not on any current scheduled route from Hull to Sheffield.

I wonder if the intended use is for trains operating a "Hull to Sheffield" service??Oranjblud (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~ On the log, add: {{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Hull to York Line

I've been unable to find and notify the creator - listed as a bot Reasons for discussion request -- This category is confusing and not well defined - there are two Hull to York routes - one via Selby - current, and another via Beverley. This category contains both. Suggest disambiguating and making use of already existing categories Category:Beverley to York railway line (plus the Hull to Beverley section of the Yorkshire Coast Line), the other set is the Category:Hull and Selby Railway (plus another section I don't know if is categorised)

Historically (and in most sources) this term can refer to the line via market weighton eg http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ccxbT09MzhIC&pg=PA190#v=onepage&q&f=false which was the preferred route eg The railway gazette, Volume 115 [1] p.278 on a section of the York-Hull line via Market Weighton, The railway gazette, Volume 96 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iIJCAQAAIAAJ p.314 I should like to pay tribute to the engineering staff of the North Eastern Region for the speedy and efficient manner in which it reopened the York to Hull line after it had been blocked by the recent accident at Full Sutton

The sub categories appear to be those of the modern route, however images in the category include those for the old route. I should note that the term "Hull to York line" for the modern route appears to be an invention.Oranjblud (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the images in the the relavent sub-categories and removed some over-categorisation. However there is still the disambiguation problem, as well as the problem that depending on defintions, extra sections of lines have to be included eg yorkshire coast line, east coast main line, leeds to selby line etc. I can't immediately think of a solution.Oranjblud (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - It is the case with many lines nowadays that they are made up of sections of line constructed by different (rival) railway companies which never historically formed part of a single service pattern. A good example is the Poacher Line which is made up of parts of lines which survived the 1960s closures. What we do on Wikipedia (and hence on Commons) is to reflect current service patterns and only to use the original co. names to describe closed lines. The "modern" name of the line is generally taken from Quail or Network Rail documentation. By removing this category, images must then be placed in cats corresponding to the original historical company; this implies (1) that the user knows which section of line belonged to which co. in the past; and (2) that images of closed and open parts of a line are mixed together. I would suggest that we keep to the Wiki structure and that your comments about individual lines are raised and dealt with there before making changes here. Ravenseft (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you have understood correctly - the issue is not "keep delete" but that the term used refers either to

• a historic line
• a modern service operated by northern rail

Network rail does not use the term eg see http://www.networkrail.co.uk/RoutePlans/PDF/RouteG-EastCoastandNorthEast.pdf, it uses "Hull Micklefield" and "Hull Seamer" [2] (or links from http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Network_specification_London_North_Eastern.aspx ) and multiple other services use this 'line'

I don't know what "quail" is.

The issue is that the category has been used for two distinct topics. (I attempted a clean up a bit). There is very little evidence for the terms use in the modern era.

I was hoping for a suggestion on how to solve this need for disambiguation.Oranjblud (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I could just disambiguate this, but would like some advice on what to do with the modern line/service, as it is not obvious.Oranjblud (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Amerikanischer Friedhof in Luxemburg

This category, created 06MAR12, covers the same subject as Category:Luxembourg American Cemetery and War Memorial which is used sin 2008 Jwh (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ambulance used during the protests by ambulance workers in the Czech Republic (2010-2011)

The category with this name does not go in compliance with Commons. The name is too descriptive 178.10.106.64 14:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The original category was Category:Náš exodus, váš exitus? (logs). There was some edit war about the parent category but I can see no previous discussion. I think, something like Category:Ambulance "Náš exodus, váš exitus?" would be better. --ŠJů (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. What does "Náš exodus, váš exitus" mean? Is it possible to find a good English equivalent? --High Contrast (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think, the two Latin words need not be translated :-) This means "Our exodus – your exitus". Hospital physicians warned that their salaries are very low and that most of them go rather to foreign countries. This trade union action consisted in mass leaving notice given by many doctors together. The cotroversial slogan was very discussed ([3], [4], [5], [6]) and used not only at this allegorical ambulance car but more widely. I think, such slogans should be used in original, some translations would be not so specific and authentic. Such slogans are explainable but not translatable. --ŠJů (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ŠJů. But my latin and my software skills are good enough to translate "Náš exodus, váš exitus". I just wanted to know why a category for a single vehicle could be encyclopedically useful (this is a not so obvious issue). But anyway I still agree with your proposal that we rename this cat to "Category:Ambulance "Náš exodus, váš exitus"". --High Contrast (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

When we have 6 photos of some specific vehicle with very specific function, it is a sufficient reason to group them as a specific category (indepentently of its encyclopedic importance), rather than mix them with something different. Categorization is a tool to organize media, not to affirm importance of their subjects. We have also cateories Category:Tram 6102 (Prague) or Category:Tram 5521 (Prague) and they are also useful. IMHO, photos of this ambulance are clearly in scope. --ŠJů (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Your last comment points out that you obviously did not understand what I was saying. Category:Ambulance "Náš exodus, váš exitus" is the new proposed name for this cat. --High Contrast (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Categories of victims, fatalities, deaths

There were made some renames (moves) of categories of "victims" to categories of "deahts". Some other such renames were requested as well as a reversion of the renamed categories to their previous names.

I try summarize main arguments from discussions and edit summaries:

• The main argument for the first rename direction: "Victims" is too ambiguous, it cover also injured, captives or robbed, not only killed people. The parent category is of people by kind of death.
• The main argument for the second (reverse) rename direction: "Deaths" is incorrect, the categories contain media and categories about dead peoples as persons who died, not only media about their deaths as events.

--ŠJů (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

• Category talk:Victims of war

 Comment: There should be a consistent way of naming categories which are sub-categories of "Category:Dead people by manner of death". Personally, I find either "Deaths from ..." or "People who died from ..." fine, but prefer the former as it is shorter. I don't think there is any practical difference between people who have died and their deaths as events, and do not think it is a good idea to try and distinguish between the two. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think, the fact that some other victims can be mixed among dead victims (some memorials are dedicated to all victims) is not so confusing as the fact that some categories of people were renamed to categories of events (deaths). Girolamo Minervini belongs to Category:Victims of terrorism in Italy, Death of Girolamo Minervini would belong to Category:Deaths from terrorism in Italy – but I think, we should not create such categories of deaths. We have relatively few real categories of deaths (see Category:Death of people). We shouldn't confuse them with categories which sort people by manner of death. --ŠJů (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a place for both "Victims" categories and "Deaths from" categories. As you point out, the term victim is wider because it includes people who have been injured or affected, not just people who have died. If it is felt that a category like "Girolamo Minervini" is more appropriately placed under a "Victim" category, that's fine. But "Victims" categories should not be made subcategories of "Dead people by manner of death", because we will end up with people who are not dead in that category. When a "Victims" category is entirely made up of files relating to deceased people, then it is more appropriate to rename it to "Deaths from ...". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer a uniform "deaths" solution as far as possible because it is simple and covers the majority of the cases. Currently there is a mix-up with victims, casualties, fatalities, ... Each variation on deaths will result unavoidably in a mix-up as can be seen in the various subcategories of Category:War casualties and Category:Victims of war. --Foroa (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You omitted to give your comments to the fact that these false "deaths" categories (which are really not categoires of deaths but categories of people by their death) are confusable with real categories of deaths (Category:Death of people). We should make clear distinction between categories of people by their death and categories of deaths as events. Categories of people shouldn't be named as categories of events. --ŠJů (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I fail to understand the difference between between categories of "people by their death" and categories of "deaths of people". The results seems the same. --Foroa (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As is evident from my earlier remarks, I agree with Foroa. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Requests for moves from people (victims) to deaths (fatalities)

Rename Category:Victims of war (talk) to Category:War fatalities (0 entries moved, 102 to go) Victims of war;War fatalities;r; Current naming too general and confusing... Tagged 2012-02-08, opposed, discussed.

Rename Category:Victims of Titanic sinking (talk) to Category:Deaths from the sinking of the Titanic (0 entries moved, 16 to go) Victims of Titanic sinking;Deaths from the sinking of the Titanic;r; tagged 2012-04-21, discussed

Rename Category:Victims of massacres during Polish 1970 protests (talk) to Category:Deaths from massacres during the Polish 1970 protests (0 entries moved, 2 to go) Victims of massacres during Polish 1970 protests;Deaths from massacres during the Polish 1970 protests;r; tagged 2012-04-21, opposed

Rename Category:Plaques to victims of massacres (talk) to Category:Plaques to deaths from massacres (0 entries moved, 2 to go) Plaques to victims of massacres;Plaques to deaths from massacres;r; tagged 2012-04-21, opposed

Rename Category:People who died by suicide (talk) to Category:Deaths from suicide (0 entries moved, 119 to go) People who died by suicide;Deaths from suicide;r; tagged 2012-04-21, discussed

Rename Category:Monuments and memorials to victims of massacres (talk) to Category:Monuments and memorials to deaths from massacres (0 entries moved, 83 to go) Monuments and memorials to victims of massacres;Monuments and memorials to deaths from massacres;r; tagged 2012-04-21, opposed

Requests for moves from deaths (fatalities) to people (victims, deaths)

Rename Category:Monuments and memorials to deaths from terrorism in Israel to Category:Monuments and memorials to victims of terrorism in Israel (0 entries moved, 29 to go) Monuments and memorials to deaths from terrorism in Israel;Monuments and memorials to victims of terrorism in Israel;r; tagged 2012-04-21

Rename Category:Monuments and memorials to deaths from terrorism in Afula to Category:Monuments and memorials to victims of terrorism in Afula (0 entries moved, 10 to go) Monuments and memorials to deaths from terrorism in Afula;Monuments and memorials to victims of terrorism in Afula;r; tagged 2012-04-21

Rename Category:Deaths in childbirth (talk) to Category:Women who died during childbirth (0 entries moved, 42 to go) Deaths in childbirth;Women who died during childbirth;r; tagged 2012-04-21

Rename Category:Deaths from terrorism (talk) to Category:Victims of terrorism (0 entries moved, 4 to go) Deaths from terrorism;Victims of terrorism;r; tagged 2012-04-21

Rename Category:Deaths from terrorism by country (talk) to Category:Victims of terrorism by country (0 entries moved, 3 to go) Deaths from terrorism by country;Victims of terrorism by country;r; tagged 2012-04-21

Rename Category:Deaths from terrorism in the United States to Category:Victims of terrorism in the United States (0 entries moved, 8 to go) Deaths from terrorism in the United States;Victims of terrorism in the United States;r; tagged 2012-04-21

Rename Category:Deaths from terrorism in Italy to Category:Victims of terrorism in Italy (0 entries moved, 2 to go) Deaths from terrorism in Italy;Victims of terrorism in Italy;r; tagged 2012-04-21

Rename Category:Deaths from terrorism in Israel to Category:Victims of terrorism in Israel (0 entries moved, 3 to go) Deaths from terrorism in Israel;Victims of terrorism in Israel;r; tagged 2012-04-21

Rename Category:Deaths from road accidents to Category:Victims of road accidents (0 entries moved, 72 to go) Deaths from road accidents;Victims of road accidents;r; tagged 2012-04-21

Rename Category:Deaths from murder (talk) to Category:Victims of murders (0 entries moved, 263 to go) Deaths from murder;Victims of murders;r; tagged 2012-04-21

Rename Category:Deaths from massacres (talk) to Category:Victims of massacres (0 entries moved, 7 to go) Deaths from massacres;Victims of massacres;r; tagged 2012-04-21

Rename Category:Deaths from duelling (talk) to Category:People killed in duels (0 entries moved, 22 to go) Deaths from duelling;People killed in duels;r; tagged 2012-04-21

Rename Category:Deaths from drowning (talk) to Category:Victims of drowning (0 entries moved, 13 to go) Deaths from drowning;Victims of drowning;r; tagged 2012-04-21, opposed

Rename Category:Deaths from diseases and disorders (talk) to Category:Deads from diseases and disorders (0 entries moved, 29 to go) Deaths from diseases and disorders;Deads from diseases and disorders;r; tagged 2012-04-21

Categories of Korean provinces

2012-04-16, categories of provinces of North an South Korea were tagged to be renamed to English names. Up to now, none of these requests were opposed nor supported. These categories have hundreds subcategories! Is it necessary to make such massive rename? --ŠJů (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

List of requests

Rename Category:Chagang-do to Category:Chagang Province (0 entries moved, 10 to go) Chagang-do;Chagang Province;r;

Rename Category:Ryanggang-do to Category:Ryanggang Province (0 entries moved, 10 to go) Ryanggang-do;Ryanggang Province;r;

Rename Category:Pyongan-pukto to Category:North Pyongan Province (0 entries moved, 18 to go) Pyongan-pukto;North Pyongan Province;r;

Rename Category:Pyongan-namdo to Category:South Pyongan Province (1 entries moved, 15 to go) Pyongan-namdo;South Pyongan Province;r;

Rename Category:Kangwon-do to Category:Kangwon Province (North Korea) (0 entries moved, 22 to go) Kangwon-do;Kangwon Province (North Korea);r;

Rename Category:Jeollanam-do to Category:South Jeolla Province (0 entries moved, 25 to go) Jeollanam-do;South Jeolla Province;r;

Rename Category:Jeollabuk-do to Category:North Jeolla Province (0 entries moved, 29 to go) Jeollabuk-do;North Jeolla Province;r;

Rename Category:Jeju-do to Category:Jeju Province (0 entries moved, 66 to go) Jeju-do;Jeju Province;r;

Rename Category:Hwanghae-pukto to Category:North Hwanghae Province (0 entries moved, 7 to go) Hwanghae-pukto;North Hwanghae Province;r;

Rename Category:Hwanghae-namdo to Category:South Hwanghae Province (0 entries moved, 11 to go) Hwanghae-namdo;South Hwanghae Province;r;

Rename Category:Hamgyong-pukto to Category:North Hamgyong Province (0 entries moved, 11 to go) Hamgyong-pukto;North Hamgyong Province;r;

Rename Category:Hamgyong-namdo to Category:South Hamgyong Province (0 entries moved, 13 to go) Hamgyong-namdo;South Hamgyong Province;r;

Rename Category:Gyeongsangnam-do to Category:South Gyeongsang Province (0 entries moved, 29 to go) Gyeongsangnam-do;South Gyeongsang Province;r;

Rename Category:Gyeongsangbuk-do to Category:North Gyeongsang Province (0 entries moved, 32 to go) Gyeongsangbuk-do;North Gyeongsang Province;r;

Rename Category:Gyeonggi-do to Category:Gyeonggi Province (0 entries moved, 29 to go) Gyeonggi-do;Gyeonggi Province;r;

Rename Category:Gangwon-do to Category:Gangwon Province (South Korea) (0 entries moved, 30 to go) Gangwon-do;Gangwon Province (South Korea);r;

Rename Category:Chungcheongnam-do to Category:South Chungcheong Province (0 entries moved, 35 to go) Chungcheongnam-do;South Chungcheong Province;r;

Rename Category:Chungcheongbuk-do to Category:North Chungcheong Province (0 entries moved, 15 to go) Chungcheongbuk-do;North Chungcheong Province;r;

Category:Photos of Vaginal sex

Incorrect capitalization, IMHO also unnecessary subcategory. Leyo 21:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Drawings of Vaginal sex

Incorrect capitalization, IMHO also unnecessary subcategory. Leyo 21:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Drawings of Creampie (sexual act)

Incorrect capitalization, IMHO also unnecessary subcategory (too narrow). Leyo 21:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Photos of Vagina sex

Misspelling. Leyo 21:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Drawings of Female genital piercings

Incorrect capitalization, IMHO also unnecessary subcategory (too narrow). Leyo 21:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Unlabeled photo of female genitalia

I don't think it is a good idea to create unlabeled categories. Leyo 21:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bottomless and barefoot women with red hair

Category is empty and over-specific. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:TranslateSvg extension

I created said category to hold several images, which are now better categorised elsewhere; this category will now be empty in perpetuity. Jarry1250 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Changed my mind again, it now does house images once more :) If any admin could close this as mistaken, that'd be great. Thanks and apologies for the bother, Jarry1250 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:2 Einsteigtürme (102, 103), Kanalbrücke Nagelberg (Eichgraben)

The category is a container name for independent objects or dependent objects in much larger scale (Category:II. Wiener Hochquellenwasserleitung). I emptied the category (only single image). It could be speeded as well. Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Trumeau mirror

please delete category, is identical to Category:Pier glasses Gerd Leibrock (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Stuccos of Mariä Heimsuchung (Hochaltingen)

error, see Category:Stuccos of Mariä Himmelfahrt (Hochaltingen) GFreihalter (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Categories for discussion}}--~~~~ On the log, add: {{Commons:Categories for discussion}}

Category:Buildings by Daniel Libeskind in Trafford

Too narrow category intersection as there is only one building by Libeskind in Trafford. --ELEKHH^T 13:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Same applies to:

• Category:Buildings by Daniel Libeskind in Greater Manchester - only one building
• Category:Buildings by Daniel Libeskind in England - only two buildings (per Wikipedia list)

Daniel Libeskind is internationally active with studios in NY, Zürich and Milan, most of his completed buildings being in the US and Germany. Currently the Wiki list of his projects mentions two projects in England only. --ELEKHH^T 13:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Granaries in Salzburg

Other federal states of Austria also do not categorize granaries by city. So why should this be done in Salzburg, where it is difficult to differ between state and city of Salzburg. I would propose to delete any granary by city category as there is usually not more than one or two. Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Canadair water bombers

There are only two type of Canadair water bombers (CL-215 and CL-415) and parent Category:Firefighting aircraft is not especially crowded. Ariadacapo (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the consensus arrived at during the previous discussion was clear. There are multiple kinds of firefighting aircraft:

1. "bird-dog" aircraft guide waterbombers to the best part of the fire to drop their load;
2. waterbombers;
3. helicopters that dip a bucket into bodies of water

What possible value would there be in collapsing the hierarchy agreed to in the earlier discussion? Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

In an effort to keep the discussion centralized I have copied your message, and replied, over at Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/12/Category:Air tanker. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no justification for the existence of category Canadair water bombers. Water bombers is ambiguous, since CL-215 and CL-415 have capability to mix and drop slurries (mixtures of water with other materials), as used by most other fluid-carrying firefighting aircraft. There are not equivalent categories such as Canadair trainers, Canadair fighters or Canadair anything else. The CL-415 is a variant of the CL-215, so should be a sub-cat of that. There's also an intermediate problematic variant, CL-215 converted with turbine engines, visually like CL-415 but not to full CL-415 standard.PeterWD (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The CL-415 was derived from the CL-215 but is distinct enough to not be a sub-category. The same applies to B747-100, -200, -400 etc, and in that mindset, B737 could be a derivative of B707 and so on.

As for the rest of the debate (including this very category), I do not mind. As long as the path to finding a photo is obvious for the average Wikipedia editor, I am fine with whatever nomenclature choices are made. Ariadacapo (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:SVG Cyrillic letters

I think a different format is no reason for a separate category (Category:Cyrillic letters also exists). If someone is searching for a specific letter he has to look in two categories. --Torsch (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

With 500+ images in the main category, it makes sense to have a SVG subcat. Remember that for wikipedia displays, most people will prefer scalable SVG file formats while it is easier to manage for people that create SVG files form other formats. --Foroa (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Saint Peter's church in Bavaria

GFreihalter (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC) see Category:Saint Peter churches in Bavaria GFreihalter (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Saint Peter's churches in Bavaria

GFreihalter (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)see Category:Saint Peter churches in Bavaria GFreihalter (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Frescos of Saint Martin

GFreihalter (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)see Category:Frescos of Martin of Tours GFreihalter (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Instant messenging icons

Category to be deleted because of incorrect name Paulbe (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct name for this category is "Instant messaging icons". Sorry, my mistake. --Paulbe (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Deleted, bad name. --rimshot^talk 08:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Application icons

This category should be merge into the category "Software icons". There is no clear limit between application icons and other software icons, as is apparent from the overlapping content. Paulbe (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem is probably more related to a poorly named category: "Software icons" should probably better b e"System software icons". --Foroa (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep Applicaion icons and remove software icons. The contents of software icons should be divided between application icons, a system software icons category and a toolbar button icons category. CyberSkull 10:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Venturi

Content is either distributed in Category:Venturi effect, Category:Venturi flow meters or Category:Giovanni Battista Venturi. A simple redirection would catch too many false-positives; I think deletion is more appropriate. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wiktoria Białystok

Category for a not notable bus company that owns only a few vehicles 188.104.99.52 20:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No reason for category deletion. --Foroa (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No reason for deletion. --ŠJů (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Stone Bridges in Austria

Incorrect capitalisation, sorry, my fault. Paulbe (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Moved to Category:Stone bridges in Austria. --rimshot^talk 08:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Jayabharat

Blatant misuse of a category page. Categories are not supposed to be biographies. Stefan4 (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jayabharat. --ŠJů (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Amusement parks in Kansas

Empty. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Kentucky Kingdom

Merged into Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:U.S. Route 144

There has never been a U.S. Route 144. – TMF (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Healthcare in Afghanistan

Merge to Category:Health in Afghanistan. This is a test nomination. Per the following CfDs:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28#Category:Healthcare_by_country
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_5#Category:Healthcare_in_England_by_county
  

The separation between health and healthcare at the country level is no longer used in en.wikipedia categories. I think the same logic applies to commons categories. In addition, if you peruse them, they are just as likely to have pictures of hospitals in the 'health' category as in the 'healthcare' category. For example:

• Category:Health in Germany, Category:Healthcare in Germany; - both contain images of buildings and healthcare services
• Category:Health in Indonesia, Category:Healthcare in Indonesia - both contain images of health and healthcare; leprosy is listed under health, but images of lepers are found under healthcare
• Category:Healthcare in the United Kingdom, Category:Health in the United Kingdom; both contain images of hospitals and other buildings of care; however NHS (which is the major provider of healthcare services) is under 'Health' and not 'Healthcare'
• Category:Health in the United States, Category:Healthcare in the United States: health cat has a number of images of healthcare; healthcare cat has images of health statistics;
• Category:Health in Israel, Category:Health in Uganda, Category:Health in Venezuela, Category:Health in Côte d'Ivoire - none of these cats even have a healthcare subcat. There are also countries that have healthcare, but no health. Note that the Israel category is the best example of the final outcome that I am proposing. Take a look at it and ask yourself, do I need this further subdivided into 'healthcare' and 'everything else'? Is it bothersome that a swine-flu outbreak is on the same level as a category about hospitals?
• Category:Health in Spain, Category:Healthcare in Spain - barely anything in the healthcare subcat; nurses/doctors/healthcare all in 'health'
• Category:Healthcare in Canada, Category:Health in Canada - almost everything is in Health; healthcare is just a few articles, so they seem to have made this shift already.

There is already a rich tree of various healthcare subcats that can and should be used, but a high-level distinction at the country level between health and healthcare is not needed. In cases where there are too many images, the solution should be to create subcats, like 'Hospitals' or 'Clinics' or 'Doctors' or 'Patients' - but a high-level separation between Health and Healthcare just ends up confusing editors, as you can see from the haphazard placement of items to date.
Finally, maintaining these categories as is poses challenging classification problems: for example, in a given image, a patient may be receiving healthcare, or may be becoming more healthy. In addition, as was discussed the other CfDs, it is actually rather difficult find a sharp line between health and healthcare - for example, where does medical research and education, or blood banks, or HIV activism, or health legislation, or public health messaging, or death from cancer go? I could cite many other examples where it is ambiguous, and definition of Wikipedia:Health and Wikipedia:healthcare is not necessarily of much help, since healthcare is the activity, and health is the result (thus two sides of the same coin).
At the end of the day, in order to make it easy for users to find and classify the images they are looking for, we have two choices:

1. accept the status quo, spend some time to come up with a long list of definitions as to what is healthcare and what is health, then go through all of these categories fixing things, and spend the next few years monitoring it to make sure images dont go awry
2. Merge the categories.

Thus for now, I am proposing to merge these categories to 'Health in X', keeping a redirect at 'Healthcare in X' If this merge is accepted, I will nominate the other Category:Healthcare by country cats to merge to Category:Health by country KarlB (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Perth International Airport

Misnomers: name is "Perth Airport" - domestic and international terminals share runways and management - Perth Airport website. Most multi-purpose airports in Category:Airports by name don't make the distinction. Some of the media in the 2 cats are ambiguous as to which one to go into. We could have a parent category I suppose, but given the small amount of images I dont think its warranted, and this doesnt address the misleading naming issue.

• Merge Category:Perth International Airport and Category:Perth Domestic Airport to Category:Perth Airport --Moondyne (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Merge - per nominator SatuSuro (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator - I'm actually the creator of the Domestic category, as I needed somewhere to put the pics I wanted to upload :) Orderinchaos (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Censuses in Luxemburg

Jwh (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Luxemburg to be spelled as Luxembourg: Censuses in Luxembourg Jwh (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Statue de Komitas à Paris

This is a recent sculpture in France, where there is no freedom of panorama. This category must be emptied. Frédéric (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:L85 Endeavour

There is no such thing, as far as I can tell, as an 'L85 Endeavour'. All the images in this category were simply variants of the standard SA80. I have recategorised eveything appropriately and the category is now empty - it should probably be deleted. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Works by date

I prefer Category:Art works to Category:Events by date, there it cannot be found Oursana (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Windmills in Belgium by location

If I understand metacategories correctly, this category should contain other categories with names like "Windmills in Foo", where "Foo" is a location (city or whatever) in Belgium. Instead, it seems to contain categories about specific windmills where the location happens to be included in the name of the category. I don't know enough about Belgian geography to group these appropriately. Can someone else help? Auntof6 (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Auntof6, an aunt of 6 ??? :-). As far as I know, there is no such location in Belgium with the name foo. Could it refer to an Metasyntactic variable ??? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it: all windmills have the location in their name. It avoids redundant categories "by name" which tend to be filled up very partly. In fact, all windmills are in the main and by location cat. --Foroa (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Either the entries in this category should be grouped by location, or the metacategory tag should be removed. The entries in it now are not organized as metacategory entries. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Lotje, "Foo" is a common metasyntactic variable used in Wikimedia projects. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That is your personal interpretation. They are organised and sorted by location. --Foroa (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Osvald Soeraa.jpg

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)

(årsak til sletteforslag) Delet this file please Hekkmo (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Domingo de Guzmán

GFreihalter (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)to delete, see Category:Saint Dominic GFreihalter (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Licking Lynx lynx

The purpose of Categories on Commons is not to sort photos of animals by behaviour. There is no need and no encyclopedic value for such categories. 188.104.109.32 11:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult to find pictures for animal behaviour articles. For example, in this category, contributors can find Eurasian lynx licking snow for water intake.

Category:Licking animals already exists. Where is the problem with Licking Lynx lynx ? --Abujoy (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Golf courses in City of London

Category was created by a bot, it's unused and unlikely to be used Oxyman (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Deleted --MGA73 (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Cairns in City of London

Category created by a bot, it's unused and unlikely to be used Oxyman (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Deleted --MGA73 (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Barns in City of London

Category created by bot it's unused and unlikely to be used Oxyman (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Deleted --MGA73 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Quarries in City of London

Category created by bot, it's unused and unlikely to be used Oxyman (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Deleted --MGA73 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Geography of Kurdistan

Following subcategories of Category:Kurdistan are very problematic.

• Category:Geography of Kurdistan
• Category:Villages in Kurdistan‎
• Category:Nature of Kurdistan‎
• Category:Animals of Kurdistan
• Category:Birds of Kurdistan‎
• Category:Insects of Kurdistan
• Category:Mammals of Kurdistan‎
• Category:Reptiles of Kurdistan‎
• Category:Flora of Kurdistan
• Category:Flowers of Kurdistan
• Category:Cuisine of Kurdistan

As long as I know, Kurdistan is many meanings.

We'd better use

Category:Kurdistan province for Kurdistan Province of Iran

Category:Turkish Kurdistan for Turkish Kurdistan

Category:Iranian Kurdistan for Iranian Kurdistan

Category:Iraqi Kurdistan for Iraqi Kurdistan

If this category means Kurdistan, its borders are very ambiguous and this category make matters more complicated.

Some users want to use "nature of", "geography of" Kurdistan,

in the same way, some users want to use "nature of", "geography of"

Western Armenia. Manchuria, Zazaistan, Alevistan, Chameria etc.

for same places.If one wants to

I think especially for categories related with nature, geography, we'd better prefer to use Category:Categories by country (for example Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria).

Takabeg (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

See Category talk:Kurdistan#? and Category talk:Villages in Kurdistan for my answer. See also this… Thank you--Ghybu (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: An admin can restore the historical of these categories? Because I am not the creator of all the categories. They had been deleted because they had been emptied without discussion--Ghybu (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As used here, Kurdistan is the region of the Kurds, a large region with many disputable borders and overlapping many regions in several countries. If one wants to properly educate people and document Kurdistan, one has to focus on the items that are pertaining to the culture and the people of it. We don't make categories for Birds of the European Union or Mammals of Northern Africa: our finest grain division goes to natural areas, often much smaller than the countries, which are in their turn classified again in countries. Political/administrative countries are not always the best divisions for such categorisation, but those are the ones that are mostly used here. For specific birds, plants ... named after Kurdistan (with basically an unknown meaning and area scope), I would suggests to create a category "things named after Kurdistan": at least that would be clear for everybody and not disappear in millions of other things that are only very remotely related to Kurdistan. --Foroa (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Ethimologically Kurdistan means the land of Kurds. But in fact Kurdistan is not the land of Kurds. Many ethnic groups live there, there are not only Kurdish villages, but also Arab villages, Zaza villages, Turkmen villages, Chaldean villages, Assyrian villages etc. in the same area. So category:Kurdistan and its sub categories are not categories of Category:Kurdish people. At the same time, Category:Kurdish people cannot fit into the frame of Category:Kurdistan. As to Turkey, ethimologically it means the land of Turks. But in fact it's not the land of Turks. We don't use categories named after Turkey, sa categories related with Turks. Because many ethnic groups live in Turkey. We have Category:Villages in Turkey (I think we have to prefer to use more specific categories for villages) as "universal" category that is understandable for every user. But some Kurdish users may want to use "Village of Kurdistan", some users may want to use "Village of Tul Abdin", some Zaza users may wan to use "Village of Zazaistan" for categorising one village. If these categories would be applied, a village would have too many categories such as Category:Villages in Turkey, Category:Villages in Kurdistan, Category:Villages in Tur Abdin, Category:Villages in Zazaistan. Maybe some Armenian users may want to use Category:Villages in Western Armenia, Iraqi Turkmen users may want to use Category:Villages in Turkmeneli or Category:Villages in Turcomania, some Iranian Azerbaijani users may want to use Category:Villages in Iranian Azerbaijan or Category:Villages in South Azerbaijan. These categories cause chaos. Main categories such as Kurdistan, Tur Abdin etc.. can be kept. But their sub categories are too problematic. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:William McGregor Paxton

Although many of these paintings were created before 1923, were they published? Most of these files have PD-70 as their copyright rationale, which is not valid for the US. Handcuffed (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Category:Paintings in Kenwood House

This overlaps with Category:Iveagh Bequest (the Iveagh Bequest is the art collection housed in Kenwood House). Both should be merged into a single category called Category:Paintings in the Iveagh Bequest, following the naming pattern of other subcats of Category:Paintings in London. Ham (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree they should be merged. Why do you prefer the Iveagh Bequest rather than Kenwood House, which seems standard to me? We use Yale Center for British Art, not Paul Mellon Collection. Just curious.- PKM (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My thinking was that the Iveagh Bequest exists as an institution in its own right with trustees etc. I suppose an analogous example is the Courtauld Institute of Art (collection) within Somerset House (building) -- Paintings in Somerset House wouldn't seem right. The American model seems to be something else again; there a collection's identity remains intact after it's been bequeathed to an institution, so you often see, e.g., Andrew Mellon Collection, National Gallery of Art. You never see Mond Bequest, National Gallery, but you do see Iveagh Bequest, Kenwood House or simply Iveagh Bequest on its own, so it's quite unusual in the British context. Ham (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I like paintings in Kenwood house too--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, to be pedantic - would paintings recently purchased by English Heritage and hung with the collection at Kenwood House (e.g. File:Thomas howard suffolk.jpg) be considered part of the Iveagh Bequest?

I would have thought not. Either that painting could be outside the cat being proposed, or the merger goes ahead under the current name. Are there many works like this? Ham (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am only aware of one in Commons, but I suspect there are a handful. I created the new cat to match an Institution template for Kenwood House, so we should also consider what the proper institution template should be. - PKM (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

English Heritage has this painting tagged KENWOOD HOUSE, SUFFOLK COLLECTION - answers that one! - PKM (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The English Heritage prints website uses the format "KENWOOD HOUSE, THE IVEAGH BEQUEST, London" and "KENWOOD HOUSE, SUFFOLK COLLECTION, London." We should probably follow their lead.

Is it too nutty to have 'Paintings in the Iveagh Bequest' and 'Paintings in the Suffolk Collection' both as subcats of 'Paintings in (or at) Kenwood House'? The Institution template could be Kenwood House with Iveagh Bequest or Suffolk Collection in the "location" parameter. This appeals to me, but I come from a family of librarians... - PKM (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

PS I'd be happy to work on the recategorization once we have consensus. - PKM (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Large images

Category has a purported criterion for inclusion which is not clear from the category name. Suggest renaming something like Category:Images of more than 50 megapixels, since "large" is way too ambiguous a term (large number of pixels? large number of bytes?). - dcljr (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree about the comment, but the criterion is shifting each year. On the png side, I would only include images that create thumbnail problems. On the jpeg side, I would include only images greater than 10 times the average modern Jpeg size, say 40 MB. Not sure this should be in the category name. --Foroa (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Foroa. Putting the criterion in the category name would make things unnecessarily complicated. The category is populated by a bot through the {{LargeImage}} template. Template and category are somewhat tied together. The criterion will be dynamic and an ever changing category name won't be very helpful either. --Dschwen (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Foroa--Pierpao.lo (listening) 05:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If there are specific sizes that cause problems with certain file formats, then separate categories should be created reflecting those sizes and file formats. And if the criteria for what is considered "large" change, then new categories can be created for those new criteria. The sizes of the images certainly aren't going to change, so what would be the problem with that approach? More to the point, if we have a category called "Large images", then people are bound to use it for whatever they happen to think is a "large" image (see also the discussion at the template's talk page). It doesn't really matter if it's a hidden category intended to be populated by a bot or not; it's a common enough phrase that people will probably want to use it regardless of the criteria for inclusion (note that the criteria aren't even given in the template itself, which makes its use similarly ambiguous). BTW, does anyone know if the bot that populates this cat also removes images that don't belong there? Does it add the template to images that are "manually" added to the cat (and belong there) but not via the template? - dcljr (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I operate the bot and yes, it is designed to also remove the tag from images where it doesn't belong. But since I'm fed up with people who love to argue about the exact pixel number and exact byte number that should constitute a Large Image I usually deactivate removal of "wrong" tags. --Dschwen (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is it so hard not to discuss about this stupid insignificant little template?! I guess because everybody has an opinion on what a large image should be. Textbook bike shed example! Just let the template be, trust my common sense and not overthink this thing. There is absolutely no gain here from complicating matters. This CFD just binds resources in a point less discussion. There I did it. I lost my temper and now there is no chance in hell the originator of this CFD will concede and let it go. Great.. Sorry guys! --Dschwen (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a typical "In Bot we trust" case. Let it go, no need to spend our energy in verifying 5000 items in a technical category that has no topical value. --Foroa (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
(Don't be intimidated by the length of this reply. I'm not ranting, just trying to be precise.) Hmm... I'm not sure I understand the way this discussion is going. Foroa, no one has to "spend our energy in verifying 5000 items", since the bot does that already. And note that I'm not suggesting a change to the criteria being used by the bot, only the name of the category. I'm not even suggesting renaming the template, although I think that would give some significant benefits, as well, which I'll mention below.

Dschwen, the presumption that "everybody has an opinion on what a large image should be" is precisely why the category was nominated in the first place: its name is ambiguous. (How can you be making my exact point back to me, and yet also be against changing anything? [g]) Having categories named things like "Large images" or "Small images" is just inviting trouble. Now, judging from the template's talk page (which I hadn't seen when I started this nomination), it seems that it has been "so hard not to discuss" the template in part because of the ambiguity in its name (and, until it was clarified, the criterion being used — digression: I assume it's still just a single criterion; I can't actually find the source code for your bot that handles {{LargeImage}}s, only the code for {{Location}}s).

That all being said, however, this nomination is only about the category, and just changing the category name is, AFAICT, a completely trivial matter: you change the cat ref in the template and MediaWiki does the rest (via the job queue). If/when you decide to change the criterion again, you can simply change the category ref in the template, wait for MW to do its thing, then change your script and let it remove any images that no longer fit the new criteria (then delete the old cat). Right? How is this "unnecessarily complicating" things?

Finally, even though I'm not calling for it, note that also using a more precise template name (e.g., {{Images over 50 megapixels}}, along with a more precise warning message in the template itself) would have added benefits, including not having to discuss the ambiguous naming of the template with other users in the future, being able to re-enable the "removal" feature of your bot again (since people are less likely to complain about a template marking images over 50 megapixels being removed from an image that's not over 50 megapixels — oh, but I see your bot is already back to removing the template), and having the option to keep the old template + category around for users that still need them when a new criterion is chosen.

And finally-finally [g], I am not "conced[ing] and let[ting] it go" not because you lost your temper, but because I find your position... well, frankly, strange. It smacks of a kind of "doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome" style of "insanity". I'm not mad about this; it just seems kinda like you're getting aggravated over continually stepping on rocks but you're ignoring the suggestion to wear shoes... [g] - dcljr (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

And BTW, AFAICT the criterion for inclusion has changed exactly once in five years. This doesn't really match the claims that it's an "ever changing" criterion or one that changes "each year"... - dcljr (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

As Dschwen mentioned {{LargeImage}} is really not suggestiv. It's only for JPEG's and also redundant to {{InteractiveViewer}}!?! -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 01:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I hadn't noticed that other template. I'm not sure what you mean with your first sentence, but note that {{LargeImage}} is not only for JPEGs since, for example, DschwenBot placed the template on File:Milwaukee 1858.png. - dcljr (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok I`m sorry, then the error-message of the viewer is wrong. Yes then also forget my first sentence. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 12:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Small images

Category has a purported criterion for inclusion which is not clear from category name. Suggest rename to something like Category:Images up to 500 pixels in length (the supposed current criterion), since "small" is too ambiguous a term (small number of pixels? small number of bytes?). Note the four similarly-named subcategories:

• Category:Small-sized coats of arms
• Category:Small-sized flags
• Category:Small-sized paintings
• Category:Small-sized stamps

all of which have the additional ambiguity of whether the "small" refers to the image or the object it's an image of. I'm directing CFDs for them to this entry, as well. - dcljr (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with new names. --Butko (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok then we do so. But I would propose a categorization for example like Category:Coats of arms by pixel size‎ and then Category:Coats of arms up to 500 pixels in length, Category:Coats of arms up to 250 pixels in length. (Also for me personally are 500 px not small.) -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 13:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to change. That limit might shift over time. Personally I would limit it to a smaller surface (50 K pixel). 500 pixel length is misleading if the height is the critical dimension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foroa (talk • contribs) 10 April 2012‎ (UTC)

This category should have a template like {{thumbnail}}, otherwise it is difficult to manage. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 10:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Convert to MIDI

Should be deleted. (Empty for more than a year; superseded) McZusatz (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Superseded by what? - dcljr (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you just saying we have no sound files left that aren't MIDI or Ogg, and no one can upload any other sound file format anymore? - dcljr (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sry, I made a mess of this. Now it's clear for what this category can be used for.

So I added some information on the categories page.--McZusatz (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Convert to OGG

Should be deleted. (Empty for more than a year; superseded) McZusatz (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Superseded by what? - dcljr (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you just saying we have no sound files left that aren't MIDI or Ogg, and no one can upload any other sound file format anymore? - dcljr (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, kinda. If so. uploads multimedia in any other format than ogv/ogg it get's linked on this site. So tagging it with {{convert to OGG}} is redundant? --McZusatz (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Monument to Genghis Khan (Sükhbaatar Square)

Contains only COM:FOP#Mongolia violations. 84.61.139.62 20:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Ridiculous --[chinneeb|talk] 02:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Atmospheric optical phenomena

Proposition of reviewing and fusion of Category:Atmospheric optical phenomena + Category:Atmospheric optical phenomena of Earth: see discussion page [7].

84.97.149.43 03:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ezechías

to delete see Category:Hezekiah GFreihalter (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Funny photographs

Unused pictures, childish, close to vandalism UncivilFire (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Sepia photographs of cities

merge with B&W photographs of cities? Sepia photos are B&W, same photo can exist both sepia and not sepia; no clear boundary; few files in cat. 84.97.149.42 00:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Original (real printed) sepia photo's are quite different from B&W photo's.

As action painting refers to the impulsive or random gestures of paint on an image carrier. Als Actionpainting bezeichnet man die impulsive bzw. willkürliche Gestik des Farbauftrags auf einen Bildträger. --Jorge Correo 08:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

My point in requesting discussion was that a relevant category already exists: Category:Action paintings. For some reason my initial message was truncated. 84.97.149.81 17:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Gripsholm

delete: redundant with Category:Gripsholms slott 84.97.149.42 03:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• The category: Gripsholm is not entirely redundant, for Gripsholms kungsladugård (a cowhouse) is not the same as Gripsholms slott (a castle). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars (Lon) Olsson (talk • contribs) 09:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:MerwedeLingelijn

rename to Merwede-Linge Lijn or similar 84.97.149.81 17:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is de official name given by Arriva self --Bezeh.nl (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Symbolism

there's more in this cat than 'late nineteenth century art movement of French and Belgian origin': split? 84.97.149.81 18:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Respiratory care

redundancy with Category:Respiratory therapy ? 84.97.149.81 18:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Care and therapy are different things. --Foroa (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Schloss Esteburg

redundant with Category:Esteburg; empty 84.97.149.81 19:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Mining by country

This cat and all subcats redundant with Category:Mines by country and subcats. 84.97.149.81 19:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Mining and mines is not the same, though there might be some overlapping. --Foroa (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Victory pose

If it is the same as Category:V-sign it should be redirected. Comment: en.wiki page is en:V sign --GeorgHH • talk   01:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Not the same: victory pose means I number one, V sign is V; --Foroa (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Clean intermittent self-catheterization

repulsive, inappropriate, disgusting 94.134.93.93 12:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Delete There is no need for these photos on Commons. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Dirk (Japanese military)

Category:Tanken has been created instead. ~ 丁 (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Tanken is not a very well known name, "Tanken (dirk)" or "Tanken (Japanese dirk)" may make it easier for people to find these images.samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• W

Why are you asking for a discussion when you have made a new category already? samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but those names were strange among other categories. If other usage of "Tanken" appeared, this category should be renamed again. --丁 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• You did not answer why you would ask for a discussion and at the same time you create a new category? samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I misunderstood the notification form as deletion request. I won't use it again. --丁 (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, just wanted to be clarify the issue. samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Tanto (Japanese military)

Category:Tanken has been created instead. ~ 丁 (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why are you asking for a discussion when you have already made a new category?samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Katana (Japanese military)

Category:Gunto has been created instead. ~ 丁 (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why are you asking for a discussion when you already have made a new category? samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pray Harrold

Should be Pray-Harrold, to use the actual name of the building. Suggest leaving a redirect in place as others may make the same error. ~ cmadler (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Trolleybus transport by year

I assume that the whole category system (including the single years) is not compatible with the COMMONS project. Creating categories with trolleybus transport by year is not neccessary. 178.7.229.166 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Commons already have Category:Tram transport by year and a lot of another categories "by year". 16:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Librettos opera by composers

Wrong English. Should be "Opera librettos composed by..." etc. I believe the categories to be highly superfluous anyway, so I'd rather delete them than move them. I cannot see any use by collecting images of libretto booklets by composer. ~ AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pelayo class Battleships

unnecessary category; only one ship in the class (Pelayo) Antramir (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Alfonso XII class cruiser

unneeded category: first ship in class was actually Reina Cristina; new category now created, and all files reorganized Antramir (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Flaps

In my view, apart from the use of the word "flap", automobile flaps and aircraft wing flaps have nothing in common. What use does this category have? Ariadacapo (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The flaps are aerodynamic devices. --Foroa (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

---

OK, I get it now (it’s much clearer since new sub-categories have been added. I brought up a useless CfD. I’ll remove the notice. Sorry for the disturbance Ariadacapo (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Closed, by originator. (fixed by me) --rimshot^talk 21:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Category:Churchyards

Reasons for discussion request - See the definition in en:Churchyard

NB problem seems to affect all subcateories

This category contains predominately church graveyards - suggest renaming and all subcategories to "Category:Church graveyards ..." or block moving contents to similar titles. 99% of the content is plain wrong - it should be in "Churches of .. " "Graves in .." or "Church graveyards .." -- challenge is to find a single image of a churchyard amongst the 'spam'. There needs to be some cleanup on this whatever the solution.-Mddkpp (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

To me (and many others I noticed), a church graveyard is a specialisation (=subcat) of a generic churchyard. I doubt that it is worth making everywhere "church graveyards" categories. --Foroa (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really convinced that we need a separate category for Church graveyards, especially as Churchyards is a subcategory of Burial grounds. What is the point? There may, however, be a case for getting rid of the category completely, as it appears to be simply causing confusion. Most files of Churchyards are actually categorised under Cemeteries (often for good reason: it is sometimes very difficult to determine whether an image is a Churchyard or a Cemetery). Are there that many Churchyards that are not also Cemeteries? Suggest we get rid, and move everything to Category:Cemeteries, but am open to counterarguments. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As for Estonia roughly half of the churchyards (especially those in Livonian part) have never been used as cemeteries. Also I wouldn't call such churchyard that includes only a couple of very old stone crosses a cemeterey. In case a churchyard is also clearly a cemetery I'd add "Cemeteries in Estonia" to specific churchyard in addition to "Churchyards in Estonia". I've used subcats for specific churchyards to gather images by location (images that depict elements surrounding the church and are additionally categorized as e.g graves, crosses, monuments, chapels, trees, walls), which makes sense to me.

As for rest of the countries I see lots of images that mainly depict the church itself, which are in addition categorized as churches and as church having its yard is somewhat obvious, a churcyard category in addition to church category seems redundant indeed. Phrase "church graveyard" doesn't seem common, even if a churchyard is used as a cemetery, it's still a churchyard. I'd find the categorizing schema OK if only specific churchyards or churchyards in specific countries were considered as cemeteries in addition. 90.190.114.172 08:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Clearly there are many churchyards that are also cemeteries, and I've no doubt there are some miscategorised images. But a rename is not necessarily going to help the miscategorised stuff, and at least as far as England goes not all churchyards are or ever have been cemeteries (especially for new churches). So I'd say we should leave the structure as is. If anyone is minded to try and merge those churchyards that are also cemeteries into cemeteries are they going to volunteer to go through the existing ones and do some research and recatogorise as a cemetery or merely garden of the relevant church? It would be a huge amount of work just to do that for England, and there is no point discussing such an exercise unless there are volunteers to do that work. WereSpielChequers (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Old England (Brussels)

Paul Saintenoy (the architect) dies in 1952. No FOP in Belgium. M0tty (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Turbofan aircraft engines

There already exists a Category:Turbofan engines. I cannot conceive of a use for a turbofan on any vehicle other than an aircraft. I propose that this Category:Turbofan aircraft engines be simply deleted so as to avoid confusion and scattering. Ariadacapo (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right: I would be only standardized placing it in relation to other aircraft engines. However, let me get you noticed that even the radial engines had an almost aviation exclusive use but I think makes more sense to leave them among the aircraft, just to be reached easily from one category over categories of engines. If you want can write your opinion also in Commons talk:WikiProject Aviation, thanks for your attention (and sorry for my english...) :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Threecharlie. Basically we have two options:

• Move everything in Category:Turbofan engines to Category:Turbofan aircraft engines. Benefits: very coherent category tree;
• Delete Category:Turbofan aircraft engines. Benefits: avoid new media regularly being added to the wrong category (especially as Category:Turbofan engines shows up in the category suggestion tool during upload).

Personally I think option 2 has more interesting benefits. Either way, the current situation is messy. We need to decide on one option. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Holy Cross Catholic church, Santa Cruz, California

Simple capitalisation error: when it's part of the name of a specific church, we capitalise "Church". Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Other Nonconformist churches in Devon

Other Nonconformist is not a useful split of the category tree; its meaningless and arbitrary. All content should be moved - either to the generic Category:Churches in Devon or into categories for the specific denomination. Nilfanion (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. "other" is rarely a good way to categorize. --  Docu  at 12:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Scillystuff (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

no objection.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Deleted, as empty. I have moved many files to categories for the specific denomination (some of which I created for that purpose). Churches with no particular denomination have been put in the most specific church category possible. --rimshot^talk 13:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Verlegging N348 Zutphen-Noord

Category name should be translated into English 91.57.84.173 12:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, if that's Commons policy. Apdency (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:La Pyramide Inversée

Empty category. 84.61.139.62 13:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

New York City by period

The following categories do not fit the current by century / by decade categorization system. Moreover, there is no recognizable system to the seletion of time periods. I suggest moving images that are still present to the corresponding categories and deleting these "by period" categories:

• Category:New York City before 1700‎
• Category:New York City before 1900‎
• Category:New York City from 1900 to 1939‎
• Category:New York City from 1940 to 1979‎ (older cfd)
• Category:New York City from 1980 to 1999‎ (older cfd)
• Category:New York City from 2000 to 2004 (older cfd)
• Category:New York City from 2005 to 2009

Discussions are still pending for three of the categories. In all cases, the result tends towards deletion. For consistency, I think they should be deleted. --rimshot^talk 17:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bitmap from Inkscape

What has a vector to bitmap conversion to do using Inkscape? Completely unclear. Perhelion (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Euro coins (Greece)

Contains only copyright violations. 84.61.139.62 14:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Campaigns of American Civil War

Needs to be "Campaigns of the American Civil War" — it's simply a matter of proper grammar. Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Carnaval

I think this should be a separate category from "Carnivals". "Carnaval" the holiday/celebration is different from the "carnivals" that are collections of thrill rides. Auntof6 (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"Carnaval" is not even an English word (Wiktionary, dictionary.com, merriam-webster.com), even though it is part of the name of a number of carnivals. "Carnival" means the season, the festivities and the travelling fairs. We might want to decide which one the category carnivals is about, from its contents it looks like the second one, and add a corresponding description. Separating "Carnaval" is not a solution. --rimshot^talk 07:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikimedia Foundation merchandise

What is the license on these files? They don't have free licenses attached. InverseHypercube 18:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Two photos have licenses and the other stuff is (c) by WMF. I see no problem hosting them here because reusing them in other WMF wikis is possible. -- RE rillke questions? 19:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Media hosted on Commons must be reusable anywhere, not just on WMF wikis. Besides, I don't see anything that suggests that they are even usable on WMF wikis. InverseHypercube 19:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of these were changed on the 22nd to cc-by-sa with the Wikimedia Trademark note. I actually did that for my own beliefs after talking to legal and didn't notice this discussion (it would have been great if someone had poked Jay or I but neither here nor there). There are still a couple that are basically just close ups of the Wikipedia Globe that I left but I think that's ok within commons policies about WMF logos. I'm happy to have a conversation specifically about those closeups but would want to chat with Legal (most of which are in Berlin this week) to make sure they were comfortable. Jalexander (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. It's great that they released it under BY-SA, but could you get it confirmed through COM:OTRS? Otherwise it's not really valid. InverseHypercube 00:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Because his username does not include the (WMF) that has been bestowed on those of us hired later, it may not be obvious that James Alexander is acting in his capacity as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. In this matter, he is an "appointed representative" as per Commons:Email templates/Consent and could send the OTRS letter himself. I'm contributing to this discussion in my staff account, but will add my personal observation that we don't generally require OTRS verification when there is no doubt of identity. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thank you for the clarification. InverseHypercube 01:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, an OTRS ticket (or a note on the shop website) saying "all images from the Wikimedia Store, unless stated otherwise, are under x license" might be better, so future images can also be added. InverseHypercube 01:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

An OTRS note won't make any difference to those who don't know it's there, and the Wikimedia Store has its own Terms of Use ([8]) which would require our attorneys to revise. James is managing the shop, so he will correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it there should be no issue of images being used on the Wikimedia Store that would not also be on Commons. We use Commons to host images on WMF, generally, as well, and I bet that's the case here. :) Again, James will know and correct me if I'm wrong. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Vietnamese T-54A or Type 59 tanks

What is the purpose of that category? It is nonsense to create one category for two different vehicles and call it then a "this or that" category. If these two tanks are 100% the same then put it in the category of the tank type that appeared at first "on the show". 88.64.116.153 00:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

T-54A and Type 59 are not the same. The reason why this category exists is because the pictures in it do not provide enough detail to be able to tell the diffrence. It should also be mentioned that it is very likely these tanks have parts from both T-54A and Type 59 as such "crossbreeding" was not uncommon during wartime. Thus filing all these pictures under T-54A label would be inaccurate.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:P. V. Narasimha Rao

The category contains no images presently (sigh :-( ) Hence, we should either try finding free images from sister projects/world wide web or the category can be deleted for the time being. I tried looking for some pics on U.S. govt sites but to no avail. Indian govt works shall be in public domain much later. Lovy Singhal (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Combe Longa

"Combe Longa" is the wrong name for this category. Neither the civil parish, the Ordnance Survey nor the locals use the "Longa" affix. The category should be renamed "Combe, Oxfordshire". 87.113.186.81 18:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Lobivia famatimensis

Lobivia famatimensis 89.160.76.145 04:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Kastl

Category should be named Category:Kastl (bei Kemnath) according to de:Kastl (bei Kemnath) because there are two other muncipalities named "Kastl" (see Category:Kastl (Lauterachtal) and Category:Kastl (Upper Bavaria). 79.217.178.153 08:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Kastl

Should be named Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Kastl, Tirschenreuth according to Category:Kastl, Tirschenreuth. 79.192.96.93 10:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Hotel Select in Iaşi

This category (Category:Hotel Select in Iaşi) refers to the same building as the Category:Palatul Neuschotz category. I think one of them should be a category redirect, but I'm not sure which one. Another solution would be to have one category as a subcategory of the other (like Category:City Hall of Iaşi and Category:Roznovanu Palace in Iaşi), but I'm not sure if this applies here. Razvan Socol (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Mă bucur că s-a pus în discuţie această problemă , eu nu aş fi îndrăznit să deranjez pe cineva pentru a cere un sfat sau o părere. Mă bucur că unul din contribuitorii la categorie a ridicat problema. Având în vedere faptul că problema interesează userii români, intervenţia este în română, deoarece oricine se simte mai în largul său folosind limba natală.

Am eliminat legătura de subordonare a Category:Hotel Select in Iaşi ca subcategorie a Category:Palaces in Iaşi deoarece aceasta avea ca subcategorie şi Category:Palatul Neuschotz. Era anormal ca această categorie, "Palaces in Iaşi" să aibă ca subcategorii două ipostaze ale aceleiaşi clădiri , una ţinând de funcţia ei actuală (hotel), şi alta ţinând de istoria sa (ca palat).

Cele 4 imagini din categoria mai sus amintită au fost introduse de mine şi în Category:Palatul Neuschotz, pentru a ilustra ambele ipostaze ale acestei clădiri, dar nu mi se pare normal ca la "Palaces in Iaşi" să avem două subcategorii pentru funcţii diferite ale aceleaşi clădiri. Dar în final, mă voi supune părerii majorităţii. --Argenna (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Cred că Category:Palatul Neuschotz e mai potrivit, deoarece clădirea e notabilă prin statutul de monument istoric, nu prin acela de hotel.--Strainu (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Translation: "

I'm glad you discussed this issue, I would not dare to bother someone to ask for advice or an opinion. I am glad that one of the contributors to the group raised the issue. Since the problem is of interest to Romanians, the intervention is in Romanian language, because everyone feels at ease using their native language.

I removed the subordinate link Category:Hotel Select in Iaşi as a subcategory of Category:Palaces in Iaşi because it also had the subcategory Category:Palatul Neuschotz. It was abnormal for this category ("Palaces in Iaşi") to have as subcategories two aspects of the same building, a view of its current position (hotel), and another view of history (the palace).

The four images from the category mentioned above were introduced by me in Category:Palatul Neuschotz, to illustrate both facets of the building, but I do not find it normal for "Palaces in Iaşi" to have two subcategories for different functions of the same building. But finally, I will submit to a majority. --Argenna (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Category:Palatul Neuschotz is more appropriate, as the building is notable as a historical monument, not as a hotel. --(talk) 19:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

" —translated by Google Translate and corrected manually by User:Rsocol.

Din categoria hai să mai pierdem vremea cu discuţii la care să nu se hotărască nimic, se pune acum întrebarea ce reprezintă acea clădire: e un palat sau un hotel. Clădirea este în mod clar un palat, dar în afară de istorici şi de cei de la patrimoniu nimeni nu-i spune aşa. Toată lumea o cunoaşte ca fiind Select, nimeni nu spune hai să ne întâlnim în faţa Palatului Neuschotz, ci la Select. În mod sigur, denumirea de hotel nu e potrivită pentru că este hotel doar de câţiva ani, ea fiind cunoscută mai ales drept cazinou şi restaurant. Aş înclina deci pentru denumirea de palat, dar cum toată lumea o cunoaşte ca Select şi nu ca Neuschotz nu văd ce soluţie s-ar putea găsi.--Cezarika1 (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Am putea să-i zicem "Restaurantul Select", așa cum e în LMI și să redirectăm celelalte 2.

Rsocol, nu cred că e nevoie să traduci tu toată discuția, sunt sigur că dacă e altcineva interesat să participe poate să folosească Google Translate--Strainu (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Le-as pastra pe amandoua cu "soft redirect". Vedeti Commons:Rename a category#Should the old category be deleted?. La Category:Hotel Select in Iaşi as pune {{category redirect|Palatul Neuschotz}}. Insa oricat mi-ar place limba materna si ideea de globalizare, la categorii s-a discutat de multe ori si sugestia generala este sa folosim engleza, altfel e haos. Deci Category:Palatul Neuschotz -> Category:Neuschotz Palace. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Category:Portable_objects

Category not useful. Can include everything, from jewelry to handguns. Cqdx (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC) ...and there is already Category:Handheld devices for portable electronics equipment. --Cqdx (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Portable equipment or devices might be a better name indeed. --Foroa (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My same reasoning also applies to "portable equipment, devices, stuff, things, matters, etc." It all sounds like a huge and useless super-category. --Cqdx (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

...and it is in the eye of the beholder whether this oven is "portable". --Cqdx (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are portable houses and buildings too. With your narrow categorisation logic, one can as well delete the majority of the categories in Objects by animal shape, Objects by association, Objects by bird shape, Objects by color, Objects by condition, Objects by country, Objects by era, Objects by function, Objects by location, Objects by material, Objects by name, Objects by origin, Objects by shape, Objects by type ... Proper hierarchical categorisation about one line of thinking is a basic need but Commons is a server that needs to help finding items, so you might find many surprising categories, such as Category:Number Shape System. --Foroa (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It gets slightly off topic. The category "portable objects" is under "objects by function" - I doubt it is a function to be portable. Rather a side attribute. --Cqdx (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've found this class very helpful, but I think it should just be a meta-category, or should only contain subcategories. I found it extremely useful to categorize this other category: Category:Portable Typewriters, which in turn contains Category:Olivetti Valentine --Pava (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Radio_broadcasting

redundant to, and should be integrated into, Category:Broadcasting Cqdx (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep: Though all electronic "broadcasting" is technically radio, "radio broadcasting" does not mean the same thing culturally. There is radio broadcasting, television broadcasting, etc. I see 133 files that Cqdx (talk · contribs) just moved from Category:Radio broadcasting into Category:Broadcasting, so apparently some other people make the distinction too. --Closeapple (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your thinking, but in Commons Category:Broadcasting (Radio telecommunications\Broadcasting) contains many audio radio pictures and Category:Radio broadcasting (Radio telecommunications\Broadcasting\Radio\Radio broadcasting) contained TV pictures, and many pictures in these categories contain both audio and video, therefore there is no category "television broadcasting". The mixture of radio (wireless) and radio (audio) is confusing. Category:Broadcasting is already in a radio category. --Cqdx (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I think this category should stay (at least with some name), I do agree with some of your points:

• First, having "Category:Radio" under "Category:Broadcasting" is a bit odd; other forms of "radio" are common enough that there is non-broadcast communication the general public still calls "radio" in daily life, such as walkie-talkies. I don't have a good answer for what order things should be in there, except that somehow Category:Radio broadcasting is a cultural use of radio signals, that should somehow be under both a radio communications category and a broadcasting category.
• And you're right that some other categories contain an odd selection of files: I noticed that people (or at least the automatic categorization suggestion bots) tend to dump everything into Category:Radio instead of subcategories; I think that's more from not knowing what other kind of radio there could be. They should be "drilled down" into their correct categories.
• And I noticed that there is Category:Television and not Category:Television broadcasting. I assume that's because the main use of the word "television" is broadcasting (assuming one counts cable TV and multi-channel satellite as broadcasting). There are also amateur television (see Category:Slow scan television on Commons) and Closed-circuit television for example. Other than CCTV, I can't think of any video service called "television" that is not broadcast, though. --Closeapple (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep - Useful to distinguish between the different types of broadcasting. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong  Keep Not redundant at all. Radio broadcasting, as opposed to for example agricultural broadcasting or television broadcasting. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. As outlined in the request, television is broadcasted over radio waves, and the category Broadcasting contains both audio and TV, because studio technology is identical, except for the addition of a camera. --DL1FL (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As someone who has worked in both radio and television, I can say that the statement that "studio technology is identical, except for the addition of a camera" is simply false. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Keep Many items are uniquely related to radio. The broadcasting transmitter technology maybe shared with TV, the rest isn't always. --Foroa (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Former_quality_images

No purpose for this category, QI always QI. Delete unused category. Tony Wills (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Deleted, unused. --rimshot^talk 00:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Chemtrails

This category brings together documents that refer to chemtrails. It does not present evidence for their (dubious) existence. I propose that the category be renamed to "Chemtrail conspiracy theory" just like the Wikipedia page. Moreover, I believe that sky pictures which identify trails as chemtrails should either be sourced ("that person on that external website says these are chemtrails") or be categorized merely as contrails. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Drawings_by_computer

I think that it is useless to create megacategory for all drawing created using computer Bulwersator (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Today computers are a medium like any other, no more useless than categorising images as charcoal drawings, chalk, pastels or any of the other traditional mediums. If it becomes to unwieldy to be useful create subcats. Covering my bases here but if it is decided to be unnecessary there would be no great harm done in keeping and making hidden.--KTo288 (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This category and Category:Paintings by computer, and Category:Computer pictures are all very similar; all are subcats of Category:Computer art and their contents are almost indistinguishable from one another. I could also mention Category:Computer generated images, which consists mostly of subcats at the moment. All of these titles are somewhat ambiguous: all but "Computer pictures" (IMO) could "reasonably" be interpreted in two different ways: that the art was done (1) on a computer (the medium) by a human (the artist), or (2) by a computer (the artist) that was only programmed to do so by a human. (Granted, the distinction is not always a clear one.) Actually, I guess the fact that "computer" is not pluralized would tend to discourage interpretation #2. OTOH, "Computer pictures" could be interpreted as meaning pictures of computers. These should probably all be nominated together and a coherent naming system devised to reduce ambiguities. (There are other ambiguously or redundantly named cats related to computer graphics I haven't even mentioned.) I guess in this case, I would suggest a merge/redirect of the files in Category:Drawings by computer to (other appropriate subcats of) Category:Computer art. I would also recommend doing the same with Category:Paintings by computer and Category:Computer pictures, BTW. - dcljr (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"by a computer (the artist) that was only programmed to do so by a human" - then it was still done by human (AFAIK a real AI is still uncertain future) Bulwersator (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

But you get my point that there is a distinction to be made there...? - dcljr (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Interior_of_Collégiale_Saints-Pierre-et-Guidon_(Anderlecht)

because the pictures included are not from Collégiale Saints-Pierre-et-Giudon d'Anderlecht, but from l'Eglise de N.D. du Sablon in Bruxelles Parsifall (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Stained_glass_windows_in_Collégiale_Saints-Pierre-et-Guidon_(Anderlecht)

the pictures included are not from Collégiale Saints-Pierre-et-Giudon d'Anderlecht, but from l'Eglise de N.D. du Sablon in Bruxelles Parsifall (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:"Apparition_of_the_Spider_Princess"(芳年漫画_天延四年秋妖怪土蜘蛛脳源頼光寝所酒田公時等宿直欲払其妖図),_by_Tsukioka_Yoshitoshi

Superfluous "芳年漫画 天延四年秋妖怪土蜘蛛脳源頼光寝所酒田公時等宿直欲払其妖図" appendix for this category. Commons category names must be in englsh; the rest should be explaned in the category description and not in the category lemma 80.187.96.24 00:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• don't care that much, but it's bad form NOT to have category topics searchable in the source-language(s) for those topic(s). (it's also bad form not to have the whole category tree & search system fully inter-lingual, but that's too much of a "miracle" to hope for anytime soon... ) Lx 121 (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(also: why the "anonymous" ip siggy (with no previous history attached) from someone who is obviously an experienced editor @ wmc? o__0) Lx 121 (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with anon (who was perhaps unknowingly logged off?). By placing the "source-language" text in a description on the page itself, people can still search for, and find, the category using the "source" writing system: our search function is "fulltext" by default. (As for browsing for such items, see the somewhat related discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/02/Category:Բառգիրք հայկազեան լեզուի հայոց գրեր.) - dcljr (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Rigga_Al_Buteen

Contains only COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates violations. 84.61.139.62 19:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Blacksmithing tools

Category is now empty -- all entries moved to category "Blacksmith's tools" Auntof6 (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The name "Blacksmith's tools" might be better English than "Blacksmithing tools". If that is the case here, then I've no objections what so ever. (English is a foreign for me, so I think I stole the name from the "Bookbinding tools", if I remember correctly.) --Elgewen (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a reason that this wasn't changed to a redirect -- which would have preserved its contribution history -- rather than being deleted? Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Restore deleted category -- Question: Are blacksmith's the only people who use blacksmithing tools? Answer: No. Other professions use these tools. Farriers, the individuals who specialize in shoeing horses use blacksmithing tools, without necessarily being blacksmiths. Geo Swan (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• As the originator of this discussion, I'd like to state for the record that I found these duplicate categories and moved everything to the category that had more entries than the other. I thought I'd be saving someone else the work, but maybe I should have let it be discussed first. I don't really care which survives, I just don't think both are needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Category restored as redirect. Auntof6, you did right by merging a more recent little populated cat into the larger older one; the evil is two categories that coexist with a different name. When a rename is needed, a CFD or appropriate move request can be issued. Geo Swan, Category:Farrier's tools is a subcat of Category:Blacksmith's tools and has naming consistency. --Foroa (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Did you look at the description at the top of Category:Farrier? I believe it correctly describes a farrier as having some of the skills of both a blacksmith and a veterinarian. They specialize in the care of horses hooves. Accordingly, a farrier's toolkit contains both blacksmithing tools and specialized tools for caring for horses' hooves -- tools that are not blacksmithing tools. So, no, farriers use blacksmithing tools without being blacksmiths, and the farrier's toolkit overlaps, not duplicates blacksmithing tools. Geo Swan (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'am sorry for creating a redundant category. The categorization as it is now, looks fine to me - the Farrier tools as a subcat from Blackmith's tools. The farrier as a specialist making mainly horse shoes needs not all the tools of the more alround blacksmith's. It should be simple for the common uploader to decide in which category a gripper or hamer should be placed, the specialists wouldn't mind I think. --Elgewen (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Բառգիրք հայկազեան լեզուի հայոց գրեր

Name of category is not in English Auntof6 (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a policy which requires it to be in English? It contains the initials from an Armenian book, so the current name is most descriptive. Thanks, Chaojoker (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a policy. See Commons:Categories#Category names. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. On that page, it states:
"Category names should generally be in English (see Commons:Language policy). However there are exceptions."
I don't see how I am supposed to write the name of the Armenian book in English, by translating, or by transliterating; and even if I did either of those, it'd no longer be of any use to anyone as noone would be searching for the Armenian book with an English name. In general though, Commons is full of non-English category names: Category:Chamberí is Spanish, Category:Avenue des Champs-Élysées (Paris) is French, Category:Zürcher Unterland is German, Category:Fenerbahçe SK is Turkish, etc. None of the letters í, é, ü, ç, etc. are English letters, ergo all the Commons categories containing those are not English. What those letters share though, is that they are Latin-based (not even all are Latin). So if there's ever going to be a discussion for a strict policy for category naming, I suggest the discrimination not to go against alternative alphabets only. Chaojoker (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's see what others have to say. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The category description gives an English version of the book title, "Dictionary of the Armenian Language", published in 1749. Therefore, recommend moving contents to Category:Dictionary of the Armenian Language (1749) and redirecting the nominated category to that one. - dcljr (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read my argument above as to why that would be a bad idea. Chaojoker (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I already have. I just don't agree with your analysis. If someone is searching for a book title (or portion thereof) using Armenian text, they can already (probably) find it relatively easily (or perhaps find files from or related to it, and thence to a relevant category) in the search results, since the default is to search both titles and full page text in the File, Category, and Gallery namespaces (along with a few others). Also, given that the general practice here is to use English titles for categories, no one will realistically be browsing the category structure looking for titles in Armenian. (OTOH, the title I suggest might be recognizable to someone who knows what they're browsing for. If not, you can suggest a better one.) As for the "non-English" examples you cite, just because words contain non-Latin characters doesn't mean they are not the most common names for those things in English sources. For example, "everyone" who knows about the Champs-Élysées at all knows it by that name. Similarly, the other three things you mentioned also have English Wikipedia articles with the titles you gave; if there were a commonly encountered "English version" of any of them, the articles would (likely) use those titles instead. It is not "discrimination" to prefer one language over others, and one writing system over others; it is a matter of practicality. Do you think Commons would be better if it preferred using native writing systems for the titles of "non-English" things? Would you know what 周易, ऋग्वेद, or བར་དོ་ཐོས་གྲོལ were referring to if you saw them in category listings? How about the I Ching, Rigveda, and Tibetan Book of the Dead? (Admittedly, this last one uses a transliterated title at WP. :) I do have some sympathy with your position "on principle", but I think it just wouldn't work well in practice... - dcljr (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Lets face it. There is some discrimination. The closer the language is to the Germanic and Romance languages, the more likely that a minor item will not be translated. If we go to central Europe and slavic languages, the tolerance threshold decreases, while disappearing when non-latin characters are used. After all, we want to give access to all treasures in all countries to all people. I don't think that you would be pleased to have to search for something that is categorised in Chinese, Greek or Arabic structures (not to mention the maintenance problem). If you don't want to open your culture for people of another language, then it makes no sense to work on Commons. --Foroa (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someday the ability to "choose your language" that we now have for page content (through language templates, when they're used) might be extended to the way (links to) page titles themselves (including subcategories) are shown in category listings (somewhat like a cross between the "multilingualism" of interlanguage links and the category-altering effect of {{DEFAULTSORT:}}), so that Armenian users could choose to see titles in Armenian whenever they're available, and likewise for English and every other language. And, hey, maybe the mechanism that accomplishes this would even allow linking to any of the different language versions of a given page title (e.g., a link to 周易 and I Ching would lead to the same page) without requiring the creation of any redirects. I can see how a "tweak" (from an editor's perspective, anyway) to the current system of interlanguage linking could actually make this possible. I don't see how it would be maintainable long-term, but maybe someone will come up with an elegant solution to the "problem" of multilingualism along these lines. In the meantime... - dcljr (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In any case, Chaojoker, wouldn't simply leaving a redirect from the current category title to a new (English) one fix the problem you refer to above of people searching for the Armenian book title in Armenian? - dcljr (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, I do agree 100% with what Foroa said. Dcljr, I understand your concern about people who don't speak a certain language understanding what the category is about. That is why many categories with English names contain descriptions in other languages too, for those who don't speak English, and that is exactly why I've included an English description of the contents of the category at the top, which you referred to as well. If you think an English category naming is also necessary, we can have that and redirect that to the Armenian name of a category as well, but the other way around would be senseless at best IMHO. The number of people searching for an 18th century all-Armenian dictionary in Armenian would far outweigh the number of people looking for it in English or with English letters, if not be the only kind of search for it. As far as considering non-Latin characters as English is concerned, because as you said, English sources mention Champs-Élysées as well (eventhough we'd be hard-pressed to find English sources saying Avenue des Champs-Élysées instead of Champs-Élysées Avenue), as late as the beginning of the 20th century many English books would write words containing non-Latin characters in italics, to show that they're not English words. I have no problem with the category about I-Ching being named 周易, eventhough in this case, at least the book has been translated to English and has wide recognition in English as well, which doesn't apply to a dictionary in a certain language, whose total value lies in it being in that language; nobody ever translates an explanatory dictionary that is entirely in one language--it would make zero sense. I am OK with redirecting the English translation/transliteration of the name to the current name, and I think that way even those looking for it in English (if any) would be able to find it as well. The description has already solved the issue of whoever doesn't understand the language being able to tell what's in it. Regards, Chaojoker (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Mary D'Angelo Performing Arts Center

Empty category. No viable images on Commons GrapedApe (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 00:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nephi Anderson

This Category seems to fail that Commons:Category scheme People. It seems extremely silly to me to have Categories used by only one image. Are we supposed to have Categories for every single person who has a photo on commons? Nephi Anderson died in 1923, so additional images of him seem highly unlikely, but if they ever do appear, then the Category can be recreated. However, until that time I think this Category should be deleted and the image moved into the appropriate categories. ----ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

At first blush, single image cats don't make a lot of sense. I think, though, that when the person is in many categories that have a large number of images, that having a subcat rather than as an image in each of them might be a good thing. Even given that, I would not have created this cat, but given that we already had it, and that deletion does not actually delete it, it seemed better to keep it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

One has a much better overview of many elements in a category if they are sorted and alphabetical. Most single picture categories get expanded, so once the first categorisation is right, all the new pictures inherit that. Try for example to find a picture of a specific person (for example Te'o) in Category:Immigrants to the United States. --Foroa (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:FSE Ad 01–10

Empty category, should be deleted Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Autographs of painters

This category should be renamed to "Signatures of painters" to harmonize the name with other categories also containing signatures rather than autographs (as in documents transcribed entirely in the handwriting of its author). Bensin (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Autographs, monograms and signatures of artists are not necessarily the same thing. --Foroa (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! And since this category consists of approximately 90% signatures it will be easier to properly rename it and then manually re-categorize the autographs and monograms. --Bensin (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Category should be renames "signatures". Autographs to me are pen or pencil on paper, not painted signatures.Wmpearl (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pacific Airlines

User:wingtip‎ suggests to merge the categories Category:Pacific_Airlines and Category:Jetstar_Pacific to Category:Jetstar Pacific Airlines. Apparently Pacific airlines have been bought / have merged with Jetstar (see e.g. de:Jetstar Pacific Airlines or en:Jetstar Pacific Airlines). I, personally, don't know if defunct companies should be merged to the successor companies' categories or not. Saibo (Δ) 22:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep it, but only use it for aircraft with the name "Pacific Airlines". --  Docu  at 23:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Defunct companies should be kept separate, although they can be categorised into their "new" company, as I have now done. russavia (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

But: the company isnt defcunt, its just renamed. so i think it should be one category and not two for one airline.--Wingtip (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't change the name of he Roman empire in Italy neither. So they all have their place in history and categories as to be consistent what one sees on the images. There are hundreds of merged companies, but an encyclopedia has to be able to reconstitue history. Look at the tree in Category:ArcelorMittal, Category:Lufthansa] and Category:Anheuser–Busch InBev, a result of many merges. Youngest version is the top level category. --Foroa (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Yates's Wine Lodge

category is empty and duplicates category "Yates's Wine Lodge, Bar Lane, Leeds" Auntof6 (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a duplicate, Yates's is a chain, the one mentioned is a branch. Please research these things before deleting. Shall recreate. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me! The only entry was the one for Leeds, so I don't see the need for the more-general category anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:People of Singapore

(JackLee gave me a message (User talk:Via null). I agree.)

The following categories were subcategories of People of Singapore (Singaporeans by descent or ethnicity), I nominated for speedy deletion. Each of bottom categories had few files or categories of Individuals. I think "People of nationality, descent, and gender" is overcategorization or hard to access the media.

• Cantonese
  • Category:Cantonese Singaporeans
    • Category:Cantonese men of Singapore
• Chinese
  • Category:Chinese girls of Singapore
• Eurasian
  • Category:Eurasian Singaporeans
    • Category:Eurasian men of Singapore
    • Category:Eurasian women of Singapore
• Hainan
  • Category:Hainanese men of Singapore
• Hokkien
  • Category:Hokkien Singaporeans
    • Category:Hokkien men of Singapore
• Indian
  • Category:Indian women of Singapore
  • Category:Indian girls of Singapore
  • Category:Indian boys of Singapore
• Javanese
  • Category:Javanese people by country
  • (Category:Javanese Surinamese)
  • Category:Javanese Singaporeans
    • Category:Javanese women of Singapore
• Malay
  • Category:Malay women of Singapore
• Peranakan
  • Category:Peranakan Singaporeans
• Sihalese
  • Category:Sinhalese Singaporeans
    • Category:Sinhalese men of Singapore
• Tamil
  • Category:Tamil men of Singapore

• White
  • Category:White Singaporeans
  • Category:White people by country
    • Category:White men of Singapore
• Multiracial
  • Category:Multiracial people by country
  • Category:Multiracial Singaporeans
    • Category:Multiracial men of Singapore
    • Category:Multiracial women of Singapore

Now, I should have kept (Esnicity) Singaporeans and make 〜 people or People of 〜 descent. But... If there is a photo of Japanese Singaporean, it should be put in "Men/Women" of Singapore" and "People of Japanese descent". I would like to know correct and better way. --Via null (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that you have to discuss this with people concerned of for example Category:Ethnic groups in the United States and its subcats (Orrling, skeezix ?). Anyway, emptying categories and speeedying them by stating they have little contents is not the way to proceed. --Foroa (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 Comment:

1. Via null, at the moment you haven't explained why you consider the above category scheme to be "overcategorization".
2. Also, I do not see how lumping large numbers of files in a category such as "Category:Chinese Singaporeans" makes such files easier to access. Note that over at the English Wikipedia the following categories exist: "Category:Singaporean people of Cantonese descent", "Singaporean people of Hakka descent", "Singaporean people of Hokkien descent", and so on. (I have no objection if you wish to rename the above Commons categories to make them the same as those used at the English Wikipedia. However, as such a move would involve similar categories relating to other countries, we will need to have a broader discussion somewhere else.)
3. Is there any consensus to eliminate categories that categorize people of a certain country by gender? If so, I'd like to see where this issue was discussed.
4. I do not see any good reason for deleting categories such as "Category:Eurasian Singaporeans", "Category:Multiracial Singaporeans", "Category:Peranakan Singaporeans" and "Category:White Singaporeans" (and their subcategories). If these categories are deleted, then how are Eurasian, multiracial, Peranakan and white Singaporeans to be categorized by ethnicity?

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Streets in Gjakova

Already exist under name Streets in Đakovica‎ WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont agree, but you know that. it was named Gjakova on commons before you started to rename everything. I am going to stop you from this mr WhiteWriter.

Mdupont (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Streets of Gjakova

Already exist, under name Category:Streets in Đakovica WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please go away

I dont agree with this, why are you inviting me to a discussion again. you whitewater have personally hounded and attacked me so many times that I give up on bothering with the wikipedia. please go bother someone else, I refuse to waste any more time on you.

Mdupont (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

???? What are you talking about? This was automated message, i didnt invite you anywhere. Could not care less. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This just shows that you dont care what damage you do. You dont care what the people who live in gjakova think a:bout this. I am going to stop you from your renaming everything to serbian. You are your wikihounding have driven me from wikipedia, i just want you to know that.

Mdupont (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Steel mills in the United States

Another contributor first added this category to Category:Steel industry in the United States -- and then replaced it with a redirect to Category:Steel industry in the United States. The problem I have with this replacement of an existing specific cateogry with a more general one is that "Steel Industry" included more than stell mills. Shipping steel rods, steel plates, steel rails is also part of the "steel industry", so is the shipping of scap metal, and the crushing of old cars. So, arguably, would be the manufacture and shipping of Coke, and the mining and shipping of iron ore and limestone to charge the blast furnaces of those steel mills. I reverted the redirection, and invited the other contributor here, to make a case for their redirection. Geo Swan (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi I left a message that replies to this at User_talk:Geo_Swan#Steel_mill

To summarise - I maintain (and I think this can be easily verified) that all I have done is merge categories that contained indentical content - presently "steel industry" contains little or no content of the type described above - it is mostly "steel mills" (in the en:Steel mill sense)

OR to put it another way - I could have moved 99% of the images in "steel industry" into matching "steel mill" categories.

There is a minor issue with the worldwide meaning of "steel mill" - eg in some places it doesn't mean primary production such as blast furnaces as shown in File:Steel_Mills_at_mouth_of_Calumet_river_Chicago.jpg - I thought "steel industry" was a good name choice - but possibly "steel production sites" (or something better) may be better names for the category:Steel industry and the similarly named subcats. Now would be a good time to do such block moves.

I am quite happy to go through the contents again (after a move) and sort out all the erratics etc, and stuff like that. In general though many of the images need more categorisation - I suggest down to factory name level - eg like Category:Bethlehem Plant or Category:Allegheny Ludlum.

Note I also emptied Category:Steel industries in Category:Steel industry and subcats - I assume this was just a duplicate category. Mddkpp (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

To summarise - if people can come to a good decision on what categories they want I am happy to go through the pages I have altered, plus any other images that come to hand and categorise by the system decided.

If any work messages arise a note on my enlgish wikipedia page will be appreciated as I am there most of the time.Mddkpp (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Kirklees, West Yorkshire

This category is for a medieval village that no longer exists. I think many/most of the images here should be in category "Kirklees", which is for the modern entity. Can these images be moved to the other category? Auntof6 (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The one is a village, the other a metropolitan borough. The overlapping of the names has of course created a mess in the categorisation and most images should be categorised in their appropriate town. With the remainder, we can see if we have to keep it. --Foroa (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it was the automated process of allocating locations to geograph images which has caused this problem. I think the same has happened for other metropolitan unitary authorities where the bot trying to allocate a location does best with civil parishes and really badly with metropolitan wards. The telltale footprints are "BotMultichillT (talk | contribs)‎ (Trying to find better categories for this Geograph image)" such as here. Scillystuff (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that there where many not created categories, so no wonder that the bot pushes it all in one category. Indeed, there is some room of bot education improvement, but the complexity of the urban/metropolitan organisation does not simplify things. Any way, there is a chicken and the egg problem too. If we keep deleting empty categories, the bot will never categorise properly neither. --Foroa (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the bot is getting some of its information from nominatim.openstreetmap.com (example), this one was for this photo. If the openstreetmap info missing a settlement for your photo, you get the next nearest, sometimes not even in the same county. At least in this case it chose Huddersfield. Scillystuff (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:World_War_II_memorials_in_France

Neither France nor the United States have FOP for memorials. 84.61.139.62 20:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with above article, BUT we must define what is copyrightable. A stone or a plate/slab or a column with the names of the deads or the name of a battle, is surely not copyrightable as being not a work of art. Don't be more royalist than the King.--FLLL (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:IIT_Rupnagar

Empty, was probably meant to be Category:IIT Ropar. Muhandes (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Norland Town

empty category Auntof6 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Brakenhill

empty category Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am under the impression that it should be Brackenhill according to OS grid reference SE4216. On the other hand, it looks as if there are 3 or 4 Brackenhill in the UK, + Bracken Hill + Brackenhills. Good luck to untangle that. --Foroa (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cackleshaw

empty category Auntof6 (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Withdraw request, category is no longer empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Skyscrapers_in_Latina

Contains only COM:FOP#Italy violations. 84.61.139.62 16:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Most Przemysła I w Poznaniu

The normal language on Commons is English - so this category should be translated into the English language as well 80.187.97.78 18:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The syntax can be translated but the proper local names of the bridge and the city shouldn't be translated. --ŠJů (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Bugs Bunny

This is nothing but a magnet for copyvios. Bugs Bunny is copyrighted. FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep Right now, there's pictures of non-copyrighted parts of Bugs Bunny films in the category. We could also have photos of Bugs Bunny statues or what not in FOP parts of the world--we've generally kept such things, though that's debatable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Keep Despite being a copyrighted character, Bugs Bunny has a number of public domain shorts in his filmography, all of which entered the public domain due to the failure of their last rightsholder, United Artists Productions, to renew the original copyrights on such films. I feel that all of the files in this category are acceptable per Commons policies, and none of them should be treated as copyvios. In addition, we can also accept title cards from those of Bugs's films that remain copyrighted as long as such title cards are classified as below the U.S. threshold of originality, and statues, costumes, etc. of Bugs can be accepted here as long as they were uploaded by citizens of FoP countries. On second thought, Warner Brothers has not been as protective of its copyright on Bugs Bunny as Disney has been regarding its copyright on Mickey Mouse, if you want my opinion. — Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), 01:47, Tuesday, February 21, 2012 (UTC).

If the character is copyrighted, it doesn't matter if the film itself is not. Same if the film used copyrighted music, even if the film became PD, the music doesn't, these are separate copyrights. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I understand now, that film copyrights are limited to images only and do not extend to the characters, compositions, or stories contained therein, unless such elements are original to their respective films. I have filled this category with an extensive supply of title cards from shorts throughout Bugs Bunny's filmography, all of which are composed entirely of elements that qualify as "common property, without original authorship." Also, regarding an image of the rabbit as he appeared in Falling Hare (one of the few shorts of his that have fallen into the public domain) which had been deleted from Commons before, I have added that image to a list of files that should be undeleted in 2036, as Bugs was created in 1940, and will remain under copyright until the copyright on his debut film A Wild Hare expires in 2035.

And with that, the category no longer appears to be a "magnet for copyvios", as there are more images now that don't depict the copyrighted character than images that do. — Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), 04:33, Saturday, March 10, 2012 (UTC).

---

Kept. The copyrighted character only appears in less than one-third of all total images that are presently in this category. -- SethAllen623 (talk) 16:30, Friday, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Category:Automobiles on holiday in Italy

That category is not really useful, besides: is there a prove that those automobiles actually were on holiday in Italy, cause until now I have seen a lot of automobiles that were used to get to your holidays and drive around with them, but I've never seen an automobile that was on holiday.--FAEP (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Emptied and deleted. --Foroa (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I was invited to participate in this discussion but the page was deleted before I could write something--Pava (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Automobiles on holiday

Good news for some people who might have thought that there car had been stolen. You can relax, it's just on holiday! --FAEP (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I was invited to participate in this discussion but the page was deleted before I could write something--Pava (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Sculptures of Saint Martin in the Netherlands

empty category Willemnabuurs (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Moved to Statues of Saint Martin of Tours .... --rimshot^talk 19:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Sculptures of Saint Martin by country

empty category Willemnabuurs (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Moved to Statues of Saint Martin of Tours .... --rimshot^talk 19:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Statues of Saint Martin in the Netherlands

empty category Willemnabuurs (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Moved to Statues of Saint Martin of Tours .... --rimshot^talk 19:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:US National Archives series: Photographs Relating to the Administration, Family, and Personal Life of Harry S. Truman, compiled 1957 - 2004, documenting the period 1849 - 2004

Category name too long. Merge into Category:Harry S. Truman --  Docu  at 17:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Way too heterogeneous to merge. Since it's a hidden category, I do not find the length a problem. If it is judged too long, something like Category:US National Archives series:Administration, Family, and Personal Life of Harry S. Truman would do. Sets like these need to continue to be listed in one place to help those who are categorizing the images track progress. Dankarl (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at any image in the category, you will notice it's still visible. To keep it short "US National Archives series: 1207" could do as well. --  Docu  at 20:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Template generated name according to NARA database. --Foroa (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Muzeum Rolnictwa w Ciechanowcu

This category should be renamedso that it is written in English - English is the Commons language 79.221.110.241 18:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pictures and images

There are several categories having names starting with "Pictures and images" (not counting redirected cats and one user cat):

• Category:Pictures and images
• Category:Pictures and images by country
• Category:Pictures and images by format
• Category:Pictures and images by language
• Category:Pictures and images by resolution
• Category:Pictures and images by size or form
• Category:Pictures and images by source
• Category:Pictures and images by topic
• Category:Pictures and images by usage
• Category:Pictures and images with text

If I were to guess, I would say "pictures" was intended to refer to photographs (and scans, etc.) and "images" to computer-created drawings and illustrations, but the terms are at best ambiguous and at worst redundant. I suggest we rename or merge these categories, as appropriate. (See separate nominations below.)

In particular, for Category:Pictures and images I suggest renaming it Category:Images (which is actually a soft redirect to Category:Pictures and images). Note that the category is only really required as a subcat of Category:Media types. - dcljr (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally (as described above). - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats not fair warning let the discussions take their course now you've started them someone independent will close these when there is consensus then you can do what ever the discussion resolves Gnangarra 07:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, two weeks is the typical time for disucssions, according to CFD guidelines. If no one has commented in that time, there's no discussion to "close". Yes, someone will eventually close it, but nothing will have been decided. In such a case, I think it's not unreasonable for the original nominator to take whatever actions they think are best. OTOH, obviously if a discussion has taken place and no consensus is reached, then the original nominator should not act unilaterally. - dcljr (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Picture" and "image" are near-synonyms.[9][10] Rename/move "Pictures and images" to "images" in the instances above. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• No problems with me. I did already quite some cleanup and renaming. --Foroa (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redunant and unnecessary if it to stay really some definitions about the structure first, drill down one level on Category:Pictures and images by country and you only get Category:Image sources by country seams to me that the purpose isnt clear I expected to see Category:Pictures and Images of Australia etc. before moving stuff around and changing things what is the intended structure and purpose is there some other format that covers this say like Category:Countries and as such making picture and images by country totally redundant as its a duplicate of what already exists. Gnangarra 07:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't looked at that, that is another mess to clean up :-). Also going the other direction "Media with locations" doesn't belong to "Media types" --Tony Wills (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed "Media with locations" from "Media types" as geocoded location information has nothing to do with the "type" of media, it's just information about the location of the camera taking the photo. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see no advantage to renaming it "images", "images" is a far more ambiguous term that covers a myriad of things (eg some PDFs are just scanned images of pages, films (movies) are just "moving images"). "Pictures" is actually just a qualification to "images" (to help people guess what goes in there ;-).

But going back a step, what is the category for, well it is just to distinguish different media types (the word media can if course be taken to mean a lot of things!), but here we have seperate branches for images of texts (pdf djvu), "Timed Text‎" (slide shows of images with annotations?), animated images (generally strung together drawn images, but sometimes strung together photographic images*), and movies/videos (strung together photographic images). "Images" isn't really a distinguishing name, it really encompases all these types, and is really meaningless as a subcategory of media types. What distinguishes media in this category is that they are "static", "individual" images. We could call it "Static images" which is fairly specific, but perhaps not obvious. Perhaps "Photographs and illustrations" would be the least ambiguous (although a little long) but then it may be thought that "photographs" means images of physical photographs.

On balance I think it is hardly worth changing (it will confuse as much as it helps, and will no doubt be renamed again by the next Commons generation who find it ambiguous :-). I would tend towards something like "Static images" (if we are happy to ignore the fact that pdfs are fairly static, and that if anybody asks I would have to say that a "static image" is well, ... just a "picture" :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

PS how about "Pictures and illustrations" ?) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason for a three word title. Possibilities (all from an American English POV)

• Images -- most generic, includes all files that do not have an audio component. Is our generic word for such things. This would be my choice to replace "pictures and images" as all the rest are subsets.
• Pictures -- ambiguous, some readers will see it as narrowly as "landscapes and portraits", others will read it to include only paintings and drawings. Most readers will think it does not include PDFs of text.
• Photographs -- very ambiguous. Many readers will question whether a photograph of a painting belongs here. Or, for that matter, a photograph of any work of art. Does a scan of a photograph in a book belong here? All of these are reasons that we rarely use the term in discussions on Commons.
• Illustrations -- more or less synonymous with "pictures" -- a picture is an illustration if it is used to illustrate something, but not if it is simply a thing of beauty. Thus a Monet might be an illustration in an article titled "Works of Monet", but not if it were in a gallery "Beautiful Landscapes".

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have seen all sorts of combinations of category names combining the words images, pictures, drawings, illustrations, ... and none of them was ever satisfactory.

We have on only 8 Pictures and images categories, thousands of "images of/by/from " categories.

"image:" was the way of designating a file on Commons till a couple of years ago. It still works: Image:Crystal Project image file.png and it will take another ten years or so before all the image:references are updated from all files and docs.

So, I think that we should consider a specific word to designate a file: or electronic medium, but in the mean time, we can go ahead to uniformise the thing, mainly as proposed. --Foroa (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that this category is linked to from the Main Page, where the three main media types are listed as "Images", "Sounds", and "Videos". So it seems clear that we need some main category for files that aren't sound or video, regardless of what we call it (so, no simple deletion option here). I agree with Foroa that "images" is a common enough name for it. And presumably whoever was involved in putting the "Images" link on the homepage would agree. (Consider also: Google Images, Bing Images, Yahoo! Image search, Getty Images, NASA Images, etc. — "everyone knows" what the word "images" refers to in these contexts, so why should it be so ambiguous here at Commons?) Whatever is decided here (if anything), we probably need a more general Village Pump discussion about the uppermost levels of the category hierarchy, and what types of cats we want there with what names... - dcljr (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Pictures and images by country

We should either move this to Category:Images by country or merge it into Category:Countries. - dcljr (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)

Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally and pick one of the options mentioned above. - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Images by country, certainly not Category:Countries. Category:Photographs by country might be a more uniform choice provided that the images go to "photographs of New Jersey" . --Foroa (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Except not all images related to a country are photographs of (things in) the country — e.g., flags, maps, coats of arms, presidential seals, military insignia, graphs of population growth, etc. In any case, you've already moved it to Category:Images by country, which is fine by me. - dcljr (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The category has been moved to Category:Images by country (not by me). - dcljr (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Moved to Category:Images by country. CFD for main category still pending. --rimshot^talk 22:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Pictures and images by format

We should merge this into Category:Image file formats. - dcljr (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)

Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally. - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Images by format. Not the same as file formats. --Foroa (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The current contents are the subcats:

• Category:Image file formats‎, which is related to file formats
• Category:Imaging, which is an extremely ambiguous term (and therefore almost useless, unless clarified with some kind of qualifier)
• Category:Vector images, which is related to file formats (only certain file formats can be used with vector images)

This illustrates one problem with nominating certain specific categories for discussion: there are always related categories that would need to be changed to be consistent/compatible with the suggested changes. I submit that "format" is too ambiguous a term when applied to images. If we keep Category:Vector images, it would seem we'd need to create Category:Raster images to complement it. I'm not sure where those two should go (as subcats), other than just Category:Images (what is now called Category:Pictures and images). - dcljr (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have emptied this category and re-nominated it for deletion. See that nom for more information. - dcljr (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Merged to Category:Image file formats‎. --rimshot^talk 22:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Pictures and images by language

Either move to Category:Images by language or merge into Category:Languages. - dcljr (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)

Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally and pick one of the options mentioned above. - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Category has been redirected to Category:Images by language (not by me). - dcljr (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Moved to Category:Images by language. CFD for main category still pending. --rimshot^talk 22:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Pictures and images by resolution

Should probably be moved to Category:Images by size (see also next CFD entry). - dcljr (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)

Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally. - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

By resolution is more accurate. Size depends too much on the format (tiff, png, ...) --Foroa (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Moved to Category:Images by resolution. CFD for main category still pending. --rimshot^talk 22:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Pictures and images by size or form

Should be split into Category:Images by size (see also previous CFD entry) and Category:Image file formats. - dcljr (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)

Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally. - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Form has nothing to do with size or format. --Foroa (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what the word "form" even means in this context, given the contents of the category. It is too ambiguous a term. dcljr (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Category doesn't make sense. It's subcategories are sorted by size (large, small), resolution (1280x960), aspect ratio (widescreen), shape (round), and function (wallpaper). Not needed. Rocket000 (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Merged to Category:Images by technical criteria. CFD for main category still pending. --rimshot^talk 22:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Pictures and images by source

Suggest move to Category:Images by source. - dcljr (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)

Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally. - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking on unilateral action Category:Pictures and images by source is in the process of being moved to Category:Images by source despite this ongoing discussion. I don't see where that was discussed. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Moved to Category:Images by source. CFD for main category still pending. --rimshot^talk 22:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pictures and images by topic

Seems to be redundant with Category:Topics, so merge into that. - dcljr (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)

Despite the request on the CfD banner to not do so, I see that Foroa has already pre-empted the result and started depopulating this category already. Consensus? Admins have heard of it... Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What result? What consensus? No one has given any opinions on any of the "pictures and images" nominations I have made here. Not even you. [g] - dcljr (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair warning, if no one has made any (substantive) comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally (as described above). - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Need be emptied and connected to their topic. Basically, all categories contain mainly images, no need for a redundant images by topic. --Foroa (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy, this is not a matter of consensus, just pure logic that we should avoid redundant category trees: all cats are by topic anyway. --Foroa (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Pictures and images by usage

Suggest move to Category:Images by usage. - dcljr (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)

Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally. - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Since no discussion has happened on this item, and most of the other similar suggested renames have been done already, I'm going ahead and making the change I suggested. Moving items to new cat Category:Images by usage and leaving cat redirect at old cat. - dcljr (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Moved to Category:Images by usage. CFD for main category still pending. --rimshot^talk 22:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pictures and images with text

Suggest move to Category:Images containing text. - dcljr (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)

Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally. - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Since no discussion has happened on this item, and most of the other similar suggested renames have been done already, I'm going ahead and making the change I suggested. Moving items to new cat Category:Images containing text and leaving cat redirect at old cat. I believe a bot will be along shortly to move the individual images? If it hasn't done (a significant portion of) that in the next day or so, I'll be back to manually recat the images myself. - dcljr (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see this needs to be requested by an administrator (see note at bottom of cat-redirect warning box in the old cat). I'll wait a bit, in case others are still watching this (non-) "discussion", then I'll make the request myself at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. - dcljr (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The files have the new category now, but I would suggest to keep Category:Pictures and images with text for images with a text description on the side or below, like this or this one. To do this, the redirect has to be removed. Perhaps there should also be a subcategory for pictures with text only like here?--Funfood ␌ 23:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Having both of these categories would be too confusing because of the similarity in names (not to mention the problem that this nomination was supposed to be addressing in the first place, that "Pictures and images" is redundant). Note that Category:Images with captions currently redirects to Category:Images with watermarks; perhaps that category could be "resurrected" for cases such as the ones you pointed to (since captions and other marginal text aren't really the same thing as watermarks). Or maybe some other, more descriptive category title could be thought up. Category:Images containing text in the margins? As pointed out in the "watermarks" category, removal of such identifying text from images is encouraged (the info can go on the respective File: pages instead), so even if you do put images like the ones you linked to into some category, it would only be to collect images that need editing to remove the text, right? - dcljr (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice the caption-category yet - I think this would be exactly the right thing without the redirect. I am not really going with the policy to remove captions from images, I think that the combination of "image with caption" has kind of a historical character, so they should be kept for documentation purpose.--Funfood ␌ 11:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking through the images currently at Category:Images containing text, I'm not sure I could reliably separate images into a separate "captions" (or whatever) subcategory. That's not to say I think it shouldn't be done, just that I don't think I would be interested in doing that myself. I do wish we could get more opinions from others about this, but since this nomination is now almost 6 weeks old, and no one else has commented here until you did 2 days ago, it seems unlikely that anyone else will notice this. You should probably just nominate Category:Images with captions for discussion and explain what you want to do. (Note the "Nominate category for discussion" link on category page.) - dcljr (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Hiking in Nagorno-Karabakh

empty category Ray Garraty (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Moved to Category:Hiking in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. --rimshot^talk 22:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:402e Régiment d’Artillerie

Contains only COM:FOP#France violations. 84.61.139.62 15:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Reliefs of Saint Martin in the Netherlands

erroneously created. can be deleted Willemnabuurs (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Romanesque capitals in the province of Ourense (Spain)

to delete GFreihalter (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:St. Charles Senior Living Community, Carthagena, Ohio

{{Speedydelete|Housekeeping/cleanup: Cancelling my own incomplete deletion nomination; so this discussion page should go away.}} Upgrading from speedy: Was marked speedy deletion as "bad name" but the name appears to be legitimate for a redirect, especially since the name it's redirected to is its old name, not its current name. Closeapple (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, are you now just wanting to close this without changing any category? --Tony Wills (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes — this nomination page was created in error. This page (where this discussion itself is) is redundant to an existing nomination, and is now about a category that has already been speedied anyway. It went like this:

1. Category:St. Charles Senior Living Community, Carthagena, Ohio was created by Nheyob (talk · contribs) in November 2011 (I think).
2. Also in November, Nyttend (talk · contribs) then nominated the category for deletion discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/11/Category:St. Charles Senior Living Community, Carthagena, Ohio, recommending that it be moved to Category:St. Charles Seminary (Carthagena, Ohio). That discussion went stale/abandoned (and now needs to be closed, I guess).
3. A few days ago (February 2012), Nheyob, the the category creator, went ahead and created Category:St. Charles Seminary (Carthagena, Ohio), and tagged this category for speedy delete as a bad name.
4. I noticed the speedy, and found it odd that a plausible redirect from a current building name to an old building name had been marked for speedy as a bad name instead of being left as a category redirect, so I changed the speedy into this full deletion nomination.
5. A few minutes later, I noticed that this actually had two nominations: my own and Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/11/Category:St. Charles Senior Living Community, Carthagena, Ohio. Reading the old nomination, I understood why it was being deleted rather than redirected — even if the current building's name should be redirected, the plausible redirect would have city name in parentheses instead.
6. Having realized what was going on, and that there was, in addition to two speedies, already a deletion nomination on the same subject, I undid my own deletion nomination and put Nheyob's speedy templates back. Then I nominated this deletion discussion page itself for speedy, as this page was my own mistaken nomination that I was reverting only a few minutes after starting it.

In short: This page (Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/02/Category:St. Charles Senior Living Community, Carthagena, Ohio) is my own misfire and shouldn't have existed. The relevant nomination is already at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/11/Category:St. Charles Senior Living Community, Carthagena, Ohio, and the subject page is already speedy-deleted now anyway. --Closeapple (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nude or partially nude girls in anime and manga

This category is in violation with the NPOV policy of Wikimedia. It's only there to discriminate content based on personal value judgement (what is nudity?) and serves no purpose other then hiding content from reusers due to personal sensitivities. ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• There is no 'NPOV policy of Wikimedia.' There is an NPOV policy on ENWP that deals with content and categorization, but this is not ENWP. COM:NPOV says nothing about categorization, and specifies that images themselves need not be neutral. This category is however important to follow wmf:Resolution:Controversial_content, which unlike ENWP's NPOV policy is a project wide mandate. It's incorrect to say that this categorization 'hides content from reusers.' It doesn't hide anything, it places it in an appropriate subcategory where anyone who wants to see nude images can look. This category is the 4th thing from the top on the general category page. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I also note that you aren't complaining about any of the other subcategories of 'Girls in anime and manga,' including cat:Wikipe-tan, which, by your standard, is 'hiding' more than 260 images. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it says nothing about categorization and Commons is essentially a library and it makes sense to apply the same rules as libraries do. You said that COM:NPOV does not mention categories. The Resolution does not mention categories either.

Mentioning the Wikipe-tan category has nothing todo with this. Wikipe-tan is a fixed term and the amount of images would flood the higher category. It was created to aid the viewer and not to hide content from the eyes of the viewer, as done with this kind of constructed category. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 23:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to take the rest of your reply seriously when you didn't bother to read the thing you're talking about. The resolution explicitly mentions commons categorization. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep For God's sake, do the COM:NOTCENSORED extremists have zero respect for users who are actually looking for nude content? This is a useful category. End of. Rd232 (talk) 11:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Keep Apart from the nature of this request, which point is not clear at all, this is an useful category. Useful as any other useful category, of course. I don't care for nude content, but find useful such categorization both for those who look for nude content and for those who DON'T want to see it. -- Blackcat (talk) 12:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Keep, useful and valuable category, appropriate method of categorization. -- Cirt (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Keep But {{rename}} to Category:Nude girls in anime and manga, almost every manga character is partially nude (not wearing gloves, burqa, etc) The category should be for fully undressed (no chothes) images. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 16:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Suggest rename. The use of the word "nudity" would (tend to) cover both "fully" and "partially" nude characters. Also, since the vast majority of female anime characters are in fact (supposed to be) girls rather than women, suggest something like Category:Female nudity in anime and manga. - dcljr (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd see no problem with such a renaming. In creating the category, I just used the naming scheme that someone else (I forget who at this point) had recently been creating a lot of categories with. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep helps people looking for ecchi/hentai on Commons find it. Deleting it would only help the anti-sex squad here. --Claritas (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Custom made photos

Vague name; unclear what "custom made" is supposed to mean. --Trivialist (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Oval Heraldic Shields

Redundant to Category:Oval-shaped heraldic shields‎, can be deleted!? Perhelion (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Videos of male masturbation by year

Why should “videos of male masturbation” be categorized by time?? Why would somebody want to find such a video from a specific year?? Mormegil (talk) 09:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep, because it's a standard and accepted method of categorization. If you want to add an additional method of categorization by quality or another metric, you can:

1. Create an additional categorization by quality.
2. Create a gallery page.
3. Create a categorization by technology.
4. Create a categorization by another, additional helpful method.

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Delete, changed to Category:Videos of male masturbation by decade. Much more useful categorization method. If you still want to have a "discussion" about that category, that's fine by me. -- Cirt (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. Content moved to Category:Videos of male masturbation by decade. -- Cirt (talk) 18:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Afghan parliamentary election, 2005

I question whether we should characterize all national assemblies as Parliaments. I have no problem calling the national assemblies of countries of the British Commonwealth "Parliaments". But unless a non-commonwealth country calls their national assembly a parliament shouldn't it be called whatever the locals call it?

The US Congress is not a Parliament -- and we don't call it a Parliament.

I suggest this category should be renamed something like Category:Afghan Wolesi Jirga election, 2005 or Category:Afghan National Assembly election, 2005.

(Representatives to the upper house, the Meshrano Jirga, are appointed, not elected.)

I have written elsewhere of a routine practice that I think should be deprecated:

1. Good faith contributor comes across a category with a name they don't like;
2. Good faith contributor decides to create an essentially parallel category, and without discussing it with anyone else, removes all the elements from the old category and places them in the new category;
3. An administrator comes by, and deletes the old category is empty, without realizing its contents were silently stolen.

Sometimes the new name is superior -- other times they are inferior, parochial, poorly thought out. This isn't quite what happened here, as the original categor didn't specify a year -- as the 2010 elections hadn't occurred when it ws created.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Geert Grote

Transfer to Category:Geert Groote Geert Grote ist misspelling] 1971markus (☠): ^{⇒ Laberkasten ...} 23:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so: in his country, it is nl:Geert Grote. --Foroa (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Both spellings are in use. It seems best to keep the one that corresponds with the title of the Dutch Wikipedia article, as Foroa suggests. Apdency (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Category:Johann-Baptist Lampi d. Ä.

This category seems to have been created with a typo. I suggest moving to the English title, so Category:Johann Baptist von Lampi the Elder. Note that there was also Johann Baptist von Lampi the Younger, who is not covered by most wikis, but his existence suggests a preference for a disambiguated category. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Could "d. Ä." be an abbreviation for something like "der Alte", meaning "the elder" in German or some other language? If so, not a typo, although that's not to say it shouldn't be changed. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

d. Ä. is short for "der Ältere", which is German for "the Elder". Category names should be English, so I support moving to Category:Johann Baptist von Lampi the Elder and keeping a redirect. --rimshot^talk 22:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wehrmacht_Panzertruppen

Incorrect category name: "Wehrmacht Panzertruppen" was never an official name of some military branch of the armed forces of NAZ-Germany. According to Commons naming rules it would be correct to use "Category:Tank units of the Wehrmacht" instead. 91.57.86.224 01:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Reiner_Knizia_Strelow

The German board game designer “Reiner Knizia” has nothing to do with the small German lift company “Knizia Strelow”. 84.61.131.15 16:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What about it:Wikipedia:Oracolo#Cnizziastrello? --84.61.131.15 16:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The term “Reiner Knizia Strelow” makes no sense. --84.61.139.62 15:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What about “IllerThyssenKrupp” and “Doppelmayrhofen”? --62.47.193.24 16:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Das Gladbecker Hertie-Haus hat einen Aufzug der Firma „Aufzugbau Knizia-Strelow“. --84.61.139.62 12:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO there is a dice with the six sides „Door close“, „Door open“, „Enter the lift“, „Leave the lift“, „Ride downwards“, and „Ride upwards“, which will be used in a board game “Knizia Strelow” from the German board game designer “Reiner Knizia”. --84.61.181.19 15:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Megalopotamos

Already exists under "Category:Kourtaliotiko". "Megalopotamos" cannot be found on Google Map, and is not listed in Greek Wikipedia page "Δήμος Φοίνικα" (Dimos Finika). The photos here should be moved to "Category:Kourtaliotiko", then "Category:Megalopotamos" should be deleted. Tango7174 (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Megalopotamos is a river (see de:Megalopotamos) and Kourtalitiko is a gorge (see de:Kourtaliotiko-Schlucht or en:Kourtaliotiko Gorge). This must be two categorys. --Oltau (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Stamps_of_Moldova

Are the stamps of Moldova really public domain? Razvan Socol (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Currently, the category header says:

All stamps of this country are in public domain. You can upload modern stamps with {{PD-MD-exempt}} template. For more information, see Commons:Stamps/Public domain and Commons:Licensing.

However, the {{PD-MD-exempt}} says:

Note: Based on emails from Poşta Moldovei, the postal agency of Moldova, postal stamps are granted copyright protection and does not fall under Art 7. 1.b.

So, which is it? Razvan Socol (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

They are copyrighted; the change was just very recent. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

So we should delete all the files in Category:Stamps of Moldova which are tagged with {{PD-MD-exempt}}? We are talking about almost 1000 files here... Razvan Socol (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We should; I am not sure why it was not done. But a wider and longer discussion is needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamp of Moldova md389.jpg --Butko (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And this is why a wider discussion is needed; this was not brought up before during the last discussion about the stamps from this country. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the arguments in the DR mentioned above, I think the translation of the Moldavian Copyright Law found on the WIPO site is a little misleading. The original text says "Nu constituie obiecte ale dreptului de autor: [...] simbolurile si semnele statului (drapelele, stemele, ordinele, semnele monetare etc.)". We should not interpret the expression "official signs" as "any sign that is produced by an official authority". In my opinion, we should understand this expression as "a sign that represents the Moldavian state". Also, I think the expression "monetary signs" should be understood as "banknotes and coins", not as "proofs of payment" (which would include stamps, but also receipts issued by a store, bus tickets, etc). Razvan Socol (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The way that I look at it is this: what is covered under "etc." and for many of the former Soviet states, it include stamps. Sometimes it would not mentioned in the copyright law explicitly, like for Belarus, but even though a government ministry authorizes stamps, but does it actually make them or call them a government sign/symbol? I just don't know. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

See also: File talk:Stamp of Moldova 012.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamp of Moldova 012.jpg. Razvan Socol (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That was a complete mess and that was how I became involved with the whole situation. I think a lot of issues were mixed together and I feel like with the discussion I started at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Stamp_of_Moldova_257.gif we can focus did the Moldovan Government include stamps as a government symbol or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

At http://www.moldovastamps.org/info_news.asp, someone (probably Niall Murphy, the editor of that site) wrote, on 23 nov 2011:

"Yesterday, I received a letter from Posta Moldovei which confirms that Moldovan postage stamps are protected by copyright but that it is perfectly permissible to publish images of them on websites and in printed materials, in their original form. The copyright protection simply exists to prevent forgeries, alterations and other unauthorized reproduction of the stamps.

This is certainly a big relief for me and, I'm sure, for all other publishers of Moldovan stamp images. This also firmly closes any debates on Wikipedia/Wikimedia regarding the right to publish images of the stamps. Thanks to Posta Moldovei for clarifying this matter."

If the letter contains that wording, it would seem that the stamps ARE protected by copyright and that Posta Moldovei grants a license to distribute the images of stamps only without modifications. It would be useful to have a copy of that letter (as well as the emails mentioned by Zscout370 in the tempate above), to clarify this problem. Razvan Socol (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, at http://www.moldovastamps.org/info_legal.asp we can read the following notice:

"MoldovaStamps.org recognises the copyright ownership of Întreprinderea de Stat "Poşta Moldovei" on all items of philatelic material officially emitted by the Republic of Moldova (postage stamps, postal stationery including: envelopes, postcards and designs for "First Day Cover" envelopes and "Maximum Card" postcards.).

Întreprinderea de Stat "Poşta Moldovei" has confirmed to MoldovaStamps.org that it permitted to publish images of the philatelic materials emitted by the Republic of Moldova, on websites and in printed form, provided that the images are not altered from their original designs, and that the copyright protection exists to prevent fake and forged reproductions of the philatelic material physically."

So, in case this is true, we could not keep the images, because of the "no derivative works" clause. Razvan Socol (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

But there is a similar clause to currency images too, so I think it needs a wider discussion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Sports by country and sport

+ it's subcategories: Sports in XYZ by sport

This is just introduced, but that is getting crazy: "Sports by sports" !? - This is not the proper use of meta categories: people are missing some logic an practical usage here. This intermediate category is completely redundant. It's used for grouping subcategories that were already nicely grouped in a normal way. E.g. this weird Category:Sports in France by sport: it's subcategories Category:Swimming in France can be nicely categorized in Category:Sports in France, which is de facto a "sports in France by sports" category. So all sports can replaced in the original "sports in XYZ" category, making all these "sports by sports" categories redundant again. What's next Category:Countries of Asia by country instead of Category:Countries of Asia ? Category:Presidents of the United States by president instead of Category:Presidents of the United States ?? Just use the category sorting mechanism if needed. --LimoWreck (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Reiner_Knizia-Strelow

The German board game designer “Reiner Knizia” has nothing to do with the small German lift company “Knizia Strelow”. 84.61.131.15 19:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• This one is also listed above. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Aerial_views_of_Hayward,_California

views is nonstandard. created "aerial photographs", moved content. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Deleted, bad name. --rimshot^talk 23:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:SVG_locator_maps_of_provinces_in_Vietnam_(location_map_scheme)

The boundaries of Lai Chau province and Lao Cai province are not correct: File:Lao Cai in Vietnam.svg and File:Lai Chau in Vietnam.svg. You can look at File:LocationVietnamLaiChau.png and File:LocationVietnamLaoCai.png, in which the boundaries of the two provinces are correct. Because of that, all the images in this category were incorrectly drawn. PRENN (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. I will correct file:Vietnam location map.svg, the original file, right soon. The boundaries of the provinces will have a better quality then. NNW (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, NNW. And you should check this for a big and clear reference of the maps. PRENN (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thx in advance. I will uplaod the locator maps after NNW is finished.--TUBS 10:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam location map.svg is updated now. NNW (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done--TUBS 22:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Vapor_trails

The name of this category is misleading. What is visible is liquid water, not water vapor (which is invisible). A better name would be "aerodynamic condensation trails" or even "aerodynamic condensation" (which would allow distinguishing it from the engine contrails category where water is added to the air) Ariadacapo (talk) 17:18 (clarified at 17:24), 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am starting to move files contained in this category to a new category called "aerodynamic condensation". Please let me know if I am doing something wrong. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I completed the transition to Category:Aerodynamic condensation. Can this category Category:Vapor trails now be deleted? Ariadacapo (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have edited the category so that it redirects to Category:Aerodynamic condensation. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Monteleone_Roccadoria

This category of a municipality of Italy needs to be deleted, as the name is wrong. The correct name is "Monteleone Rocca Doria" and a category with that name already exists. Just to make sure, I also doublechecked the name on the istitutional site of the municipality. Please proceed with deletion. Japs 88 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Ciao. Discanto (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Deleted, bad name. --rimshot^talk 23:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Balboa_High_School

This category is empty Auntof6 (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• There were several images when the category was created; I don't know what happened to them (deleted?). A quick search found one on Commons which I put in the cat. There are some 4 or 5 images on en:W tagged for transfer to Commons, so it looks like it may be a useful cat again. -- Infrogmation (talk)
  • There is a Balboa High School in Panama and most likely in the many other places in En:Balboa. --Foroa (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    • And when there are images for them, we can create a more-specific category. I see there is one file there now, but I don't believe one file warrants a category. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • All significant buildings end up eventually in a category as this facilitates multi-categorisation in lists such as Category:Buildings in San Francisco. There are thousands of single file categories as they fit better in structures and facilitate categorisation of new uploads. --Foroa (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
        • OK, good to know! --Auntof6 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Eartags

I'm not native English speaker but according to Wikipedia article en:Ear tag i think that this category and it's subcategories should be renamed to Category:Ear tags --Smooth_O (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Good remark. And why Category:Earrings, Category:Earmuffs and Category:Earmarks ? --Foroa (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Those three are valid English words. English is not known for its consistency! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, there's a related issue where further input would be helpful, see Category talk:Cattle with eartags. We should be aware of Commons' growth – do we want subcategories like "Cattle with yellow ear tags/eartags in the United Kingdom" and "Cattle with blue ear tags/eartags in Scotland", or not? ;-) --:bdk: 13:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:S-train stations in Denmark

It has been suggested on my talk page that Category:S-train stations in Denmark and Category:S-train stations in Copenhagen are merged into one category because there is only S-trains in or around Copenhagen. Further more it can be discussed what "Copenhagen" is. --MGA73 (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am the one suggesting it. The S-train network of Copenhagen is one single network, so it doesn't really make sence to divide the stations in two categories. It is also a problem that people often confuze the city Copenhagen with Copenhagen Municipality which only cover the central part of the city. This make it hard to figure out which stations which belong where. The S-train network however is build and driven by the state railways and is not limited by munipality boarders, so it is pointless to divide the category there. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose as per my previous arguments on User talk:MGA73/Archive 10#Fusion_af_kategorier, which translates to the problem of pouring a bunch of buildings from i.e. Køge, Hillerød and Frederikssund into the Category:Buildings in Copenhagen structure. As it is now (or at least the first 1,000 images), this does only contain (more or less) buildings and structures in Copenhagen area and I think we should aim to keep it that way. --heb [T C E] 07:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I just made a fresh list of all images in Category:Buildings in Copenhagen (BiC), including subcategories (which brings us to 5,414 unique images). At an initial glimpse of the images, it looks like most of the images are actually concerning buildings in Copenhagen, but there is also some monuments and museums artifacts which can be discussed. Also it took a bit of detective work, to figure out, why images such as File:Waterloo Bridge, London - geograph.org.uk - 1286022.jpg ended up under BiC (but this edit solved the issue). As it is now I don't think that BiC will benefit from further "pollution" of S-train stations from areas outside of Copenhagen, but you might take a look yourself (Warning: The page alone is 477,830 bytes - added size of thumbs, and you'll end up with quite a large request). --heb [T C E] 08:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I took a look on some of the similar station-categories. S-Bahn Berlin have it divided between Category:S-Bahn stations in Berlin and Category:S-Bahn Berlin stations in Brandenburg, but via Category:S-Bahn Berlin they are both subcategories to both Berlin and Brandenburg. Category:Oslo subway stations is divided by railway lines. Category:S-Bahn stations in Hamburg and Category:London Underground stations don't divide. Category:Stations of Paris Metro and Category:Stockholm Metro stations each have a few stations outside in a subcategory, but they are still subcategories to the respective city.

Generally, metro and rapid transport systems are not necessary limited by cities, municipalities or regions. They often have a given city as their center but they can go outside if wished or needed.

In the case of Copenhagen there is also the question whether we speek about the city or the municipality. That's a problem because many don't know or are aware of the difference. But it is also a problem with the stations outside either. Where do they belong, and should they also have their own categories? Not to mention the rather unlogical fact that Rødovre Station is actually not in Rødovre Municipality but in Hvidovre Municipality. Or Hellerup Station where the station building are in Copenhagen Municipality but some of the northern tracks in Gentofte Municipality. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Charles_E._Brown

Charles E. Brown died in 1982. As he was a war correspondent rather than a serviceman, does {{PD-UK-Gov}} apply? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Main problem is that he not only worked for the military but most of his images were taken for the manufacturers, a lot of images that have been marked as crown copyright are actually works for companies like Hawker and Supermarine and nothing to do with the government. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If we accept an idea that "military contractors during wartime are agents of the military" then both objections would seem to fall together. The point really is does the Crown claim a Crown Copyright on these images? If they do (and it's their right to simply do so), then they become Crown Copyright, and thus expired into the PD by now. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"military contractors during wartime are agents of the military" - yay let's accept that, i like. but more seriously, to add something to the discussion, while we're not lawyers, despite the above quote may sound a bit strong at first, i think there is a point in, that, most of their military products (which were not viably exported, or not permitted to, or neither but were springing into existence first and foremost by the gov. requiremts), and in rarer cases some whole (smaller/more specialized) companies weren't running on anything else but this, were funded from public tax money, by the government, for the 'government' (or, through it, the nation itself; its defence in particular). without this, most of the subject of these works wouldn't even exist to photograph. therefore there is undoubtedly existing some public/governmental/"Crownical" aire in this thing, imo. any claim would only clearen up/obviate things... --Aaa3-other (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Recherche_expedition

What is this title ? French, or English ? What does it mean ? Sammyday (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably some sort of translation of Sv:Rechercheexpeditionen = en:La_Recherche_Expedition_(1838–1840) --Foroa (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - it contains pieces of art etc. which were created during the Arctic expedition with the French ship named La Recherche. So, I probably should have named the category La Recherche Expedition instead. OK if I do this?--Skogsfrun (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Better keep the full "en" name as there has been other experditions such as File:Gaimard Voyage en Islande et au Groenland title.jpg. --Foroa (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree.--Sammyday (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Tour_Granite

No images (due to COM:FOP#France). 84.61.131.15 14:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Leave. they will come back ... --Foroa (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ariel,_West_Bank

Until very recently all this content was in Category:Ariel, Israel. Now, Ariel is (correctly) described by English Wikipedia as "an Israeli settlement city in the West Bank." (ditto German Wikipedia: "eine Stadt und israelische Siedlung im Westjordanland." and French Wikipedia: "une colonie israélienne située dans les montagnes de Cisjordanie en Territoires occupés.") This means it can be within Israeli categories but not Israel categories (on English Wikipedia it is categorised in both "Cities in the West Bank" and "Mixed Israeli settlements".).

Very recently, an IP created Category:Ariel, West Bank, which refers to the same entity as the previous Category:Ariel, Israel, and that has now been emptied (and I added a {{category redirect}}). Category:Ariel, Israel is a bad name, as it strongly implies that Ariel is within the country of Israel, which it isn't. Category:Ariel,_West_Bank is technically correct, but may still create unnecessary conflict. The obvious compromise candidate for a category name is Category:Ariel (city) (at least 8 Wikipedias use this approach for naming their article). Rd232 (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Much easier is Category:Ariel. The moving of so many picks and categories without discussion is unaccepted. Ori~ (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: category has now been moved to Category:Ariel (city) already. Unless someone wants to argue for an alternative approach, there's nothing more to do. Rd232 (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Schools_of_medicine

I believe this category should be deleted as it is rendundant. "Category:Medical schools" already exists. Hazmat2 (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Probably should be a redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 02:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed, a redirect would avoid a repeat of this redundancy.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• I think we should use the same terms that used in Wikipedia and other project for a concept. In wikipedia School of medicine is used as category title and seems it is more correct than Medical school. --غلامرضا باقری (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Our policy is that category names are plural, so at the least it would have to be "Schools of medicine". In American English, at least, "Medical School" is the usual informal usage and frequently is also the formal usage. See Harvard Medical School, Chicago Medical School, Alpert Medical School (Brown), George Washington University Medical School, University of Michigan Medical School, Dartmouth Medical School, etc.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for complete response. My English is not very well but I think we should use the same forms of phrase in all sister projects. غلامرضا باقری (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Legoland_Florida

Contains only COM:FOP#United States violations. 84.61.131.15 18:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 Keep File:Treasure Island Hotel Constructed Out Of Legos.jpg was kept. --84.61.139.62 22:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Uncia uncia heads

Seems to be redundant to Category:Uncia uncia (head). Leyo 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

heads is the form which is used in most categories concerning animal heads therefore I would delete category Category:Uncia uncia (head). --Kersti (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

See e.g. Category:Panthera leo (head), Category:Panthera tigris (head), Category:Pavo cristatus (head). --Leyo 19:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cervus_eldii_in_Prague_Zoo

Species name is now Panolia eldii  Hans 08:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I am not professional biolog, but there exist category: Cervus eldi here and also page Cervus eldii. That why I created category Category:Cervus_eldii_in_Prague_Zoo without any doubt, that something is wrong... --Karelj (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ball_of_pollen

Name should be changed to "pollen balls", or "bee pollen", to correct category grammar Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Good Idea, No problem for me.. --F. Lamiot (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Kamov_Ka-35

Is this cat really usefull ? Sammyday (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Railroads_of_Massachusetts

Doubles Category:Railways in Massachusetts. "Railways in ..." is used for numerous US states; "Railroads in ..." is not. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Properties_of_religious_function_on_the_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_in_Maryland

It's now empty and it duplicates category "Buildings of religious function on the National Register of Historic Places in Maryland" Auntof6 (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Women_in_sexually_appealing_postures

Also: Category:Men in sexually appealing postures

 Delete What use should this category have? Should this be a maintenance category (not categorized as such but instead in three topic categories)? This description is quite rude and non-neutral. Saibo (Δ) 14:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Delete What one considers "sexually appealing" is a matter of personal taste. This category cannot be objectively defined. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Purpose is to identify gratuitous sexual appeal present as a subtext, cheesecake mixed in with vacuum cleaning, for example. Fred Bauder (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems to me that, in most of the pictures, it's not the posture but the nudity that's sexually appealing. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Delete Agreed with all arguments against. Handcuffed (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I hate to go all "OTHERCRAPEXISTS" here (I'm actually technically not, since I'm not supporting either a keep or delete result, nor is this enwiki), but there are other categories on Commons where it's not exactly 'objective' whether or not something is intended sexually. Category:Exhibitionism (and the male, female subcategories, and subcategories of those like Category:Female breast flashing). Is a man or a woman "flashing" or just taking their pants or top off? How do we know whether images in Category:Wet T-shirt contests are actually of women at actual wet t-shirt contests or just wearing wet T-shirts but not specifically at a contest? What about Category:Erotic pole dancing and Category:Suggestive use of feathers? Those two are on File:Victoriabeckhampole.jpg, an image of Victoria Beckham, ex-Spice Girl and well known celebrity. Is that actually erotic pole dancing or just some sort of postmodern Lady Gaga-esque reference to erotic pole dancing? Is that use of feathers actually suggestive? If we're going to require objective definitions, a whole stack of categories in the category tree from Category:Erotic is going to have to be reconsidered. If we are going to keep around all these sex and erotic categories, which, given that Wikipedia allows for sex-related content and Commons has no plans on deleting its porn-stash any time soon, is probably no bad idea, I'd caution against radical shifting around of categories on the basis of 'objective' tests given that once you start down that road, all sorts of craziness will come from it. Instead, that ever rare commodity common sense might be useful. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Like Tom Morris. I think this category is not very useful and objective. But not less than "eros" one and relative subs. --Pierpao.lo (listening) 15:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Delete No objective criteria for what images do and do not belong in these categories, and the few images currently in them do not really fulfill the title of the category. They're more like "images of sexually appealing (wo)men [by majority-view contemporary Western standards] in various postures". They serve no purpose. —Angr 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Revival architectural styles

Examples:

• Category:Romanesque Revival architecture in Ohio
• Category:Romanesque revival architecture in California
• Category:Gothic Revival architecture in Illinois
• Category:Gothic revival architecture in Alsace

This CFD covers all categories that begin with the strings "Romanesque revival architecture in", "Romanesque Revival architecture in", "Gothic revival architecture in", and "Gothic Revival architecture in". I'd like to see consistent capitalisation: either they'll all be "Romanesque revival architecture in" and "Gothic revival architecture in", or they'll all be "Romanesque Revival architecture in" and "Gothic Revival architecture in". I've not placed the tags on the categories yet, but I've requested that a bot do it, since there are so many such categories. For some reason, capitalisation is extraordinarily inconsistent with these categories: we have many categories for each style that use "revival" and many that use "Revival". I'm somewhat inclined toward "Revival", because we have "Colonial Revival" and "Greek Revival" rather than "Colonial revival" or "Greek revival" (and note that the en:wp articles are w:Gothic Revival architecture and w:Romanesque Revival architecture), but I'd heartily prefer "revival" to the current chaotic situation. Nyttend (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Harmonised 21 categories with the spelling of the parent category and the large majority of sub categories as one can see here and here. --Foroa (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a list of category names with words "revival architecture" they are mostly consistent with parent category, and after harmonizing that it will be probably good enough. --Jarekt (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. The more categories that can be harmonised, the better. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, note that Foroa has interfered with this CFD by moving several categories while it's under discussion. This is completely inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we should harmonize them to match the parent category, or the most frequently used form. --Jarekt (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We are harmonising all the time, and moved the 2% categories that were not consistent. As you stated: The more categories that can be harmonised, the better. If one wants that {{Us states}} in Category:Romanesque revival architecture in Arkansas work, naming must be consistent.

By the way, en:Category:Romanesque revival architecture in the United States has been moved only one year ago, so not surprising that there are inconsistencies. --Foroa (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

When something is at CFD, wait until it's done. Plain and simple. Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ashtabula_County_(Ohio)_covered_bridges

This is definitely a useful category, but the name itself is problematic — in general, when we have categories for US counties, we use the name format "TOPIC in COUNTYNAME County, STATENAME". Let's make it "Category:Covered bridges in Ashtabula County, Ohio". Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree completely: that is the standard Commons syntax. --Foroa (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Also of correct Commons practice is permitting CFD to work, rather than circumventing it. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Photographs_of_sexual_intercourse

Delete; sexual intercourse is too vague, images should be classified according to sex act Handcuffed (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems not to be the worst idea - but please could you not empty a category before such a discussion if possible? :-) --Saibo (Δ) 02:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I was too bold on that one. Handcuffed (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Hauptbahnhöfe

Should be renamed in "Category:Main train stations in Germany" - no need for a german category "Hauptbahnhöfe" since it is a plain translation of "main train stations" 80.187.106.255 12:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The category contains not all stations which are really main stations of certain city but only such of them which have this word in their name. This is really a category of stations which are distinguished with the word "Hauptbahnof", indepentently on the country where they are. No need to split them by separate German-language countries. --ŠJů (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Al_Reem_Island

Contains only COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates violations. 84.61.131.15 15:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nude_skateboarding

Underfilled category. Is there anything special with "nude skateboarding" - only one file (is it expected that this number grows larger soon?). That category seems to be use not useful - this one file can get the only three super categories added directly. Saibo (Δ) 18:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a logic of category tree within "nude sports". Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/10/Category:Nude or partially nude people with electric toothbrushes and stop creating discussions for every equivalent cat with the same argument. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So how do you justify the existence of this category? --Saibo (Δ) 00:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There are several "Nude sports" cat. I don't see any valid reason to delete them (it's a different way to practice those sports and activities) and I see even less reason to question this particular one and not the others ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"otherstuffexists" ;-) Well, those, which I have nominated, are the least filled ones. This one image of this category gets [[Category:Skateboarding]] [[Category:Nude sports|Skateboarding]] [[Category:Nude or partially nude people with skateboards]] (only three and not e.g. 20(!)) directly and we can save this category which doesn't serve the purpose of Categories since it more hides than shows this one image. --Saibo (Δ) 18:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does it bother you that much ? When we have a category of a famous person with only one file, no-one complains about the existence of the cat. Why ? Just because the category is pertinent within a logic of category tree and because it's far easier to create categories that may be filled later easily when new files are uploaded than waiting for dozens of files and searching all the files that could fit in a category to create. Moreover we just lose time for nothing discussing such useless deletion request. I repeat my question : why does it bother you ? Isn't it better to have that file in a cat that really describes it instead of having it in 3 different cats that concerns it partly and therefore describes it unperfectly ? Come on ! Don't you have better and more constructive things to do to improve the project ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That question goes right back to you: Don't you have more constructive things to do to improve the project than to create dozens of contra-productive categories? --Saibo (Δ) 12:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am constructive since I build categories and I actualy follow a logical category tree (whereas you are destructive). You say It's contra-productive but you don't demonstrate why it is.

It's also funny to see it's the only thing you react to concerning my previous message ! You don't say why this kind of cat really bothers you and why other one-file categories are not questioned. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Building is not always constructive. Do you build big, tall walls around a viewing point on the top of a mountain? Why not? I did not answer to the rest of your prev. msg because you know the answer and I also have told it here before (search this page for "hide"). --Saibo (Δ) 20:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, you've got a point. But I still see no answer/comment on my question about the one-file cats that no-one seem to find illogical... Nor about your opinion for the other (multiple-file) "nude sports" cats. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean categories for famous persons? Well, they e.g. usually have more than 3 categories maybe bibliographic reference data in case of persons or coordinates in case of objects and provide semantics which isn't there without them - eg interwikis to Wikipedia articles. Without such a category you do not have those interwikis, bibliographic reference data. And in addition: E.g. portrait photographs of (more or less) usually have the most usability because of the person depicted - not because of the photographic setting (e.g. "bust portrais in front of blue sky"). That said, I don't think it is useful to create person cats for one image.
Do you have that frequent features of person cats here? No, not really, you created this cat (and the other "nude ..." categories) for a single reason: to hide content.
Regarding your last question: yes, as said also above, I think it is better if the one file would be in [[Category:Skateboarding]] [[Category:Nude sports|Skateboarding]] [[Category:Nude or partially nude people with skateboards]]. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop your paranoia and please be honest ! You know me : I've defended nudity/sex files many many times against censorship on Commons, so my intention is NOT to hide content. But we actually had this debate already so I don't really want to waste my time explaining everything again since you're not able to listen (see the link in my first message here if you want to read my explanations again). What I see is that you cannot accept that category tree logic and since you're not happy with one decision, you launch several other discussions based on the same argument. Therefore you don't respect the following rule of Commons : Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW please be coherent also. Your arguments like "there's only 3 cats" or "few files" or "there's no interwiki" etc have no value when, in parallel, you defend a category tree like this one. In both case there's just a logic of category tree behind the creation of the concerned cats. No wish to hide or whatever paranoia. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and just an anwser about the usefulness of cats of persons with one cat. I said it above already : it's just a pragmatic anticipation. And when you have a Wikipedia article about this person, you can have an interwiki to Commons (with the same logic : readers may not know that new files have been uploaded if you only show the first and temporarily unique file of this person on the article). Just a question of neutral logic. Again and again. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Good, we are finished again. See you next time. One correction: I did not support "Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests in Canada - it was just vandalism (in case you did not recognize that for some reason...). --Saibo (Δ) 16:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I did recognize vandalism. But you probably would have re-nominate it for discussion if you weren't supporting it, wouldn't you ? Or that would just prove that you don't care because it doesn't affect your paranoia about "hiding nude content". Anyway, I understand your overall point about the nude subcats (even if I don't share it and I think you do exagerate the consequences - actually when you see for instance the Category:Females with microphones, the nude subcat make the concerned files a lot more visible than keeping them within the terrible amount of non-nude files of the mother cat !) but in that precise case ("nude skateboarding" and other nude sports) I really don't understand where there could be any problem. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nude_people_with_Coca-Cola_bottles

Underfilled category (one file). Is there anything special with "Nude people with Coca-Cola bottles" (is it expected that this number grows larger soon?)? That category seems to be use not useful - this one file can get the only two super categories added directly Saibo (Δ) 18:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a logic of category tree. Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/10/Category:Nude or partially nude people with electric toothbrushes and stop creating discussions for every equivalent cat with the same argument. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Jumeirah_Mosque

Empty category. Uploading imags of the Jumeriah Mosque to Commons is generally inappropriate as there is no FoP in the UAE and the building is not out of copyright. CT Cooper · talk 20:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• No longer empty, but that image was nominated for deletion earlier for the reasons above. CT Cooper · talk 13:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Yas_Marina_Hotel

Contains only COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates violations. 84.61.131.15 22:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

 Keep File:Yas Marina Hotel by Rob Alter.jpg was kept. --84.61.139.62 10:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Files_requiring_U.S._copyright_review

Personal playground of Dcoetzee. See also Commons:Village_pump#Proposed_changes_to_PD_tags, User_talk:Dcoetzee#Stop_your_attempts_to_break_Commons Saibo (Δ) 22:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. The purpose of this category is to facilitate a review of PD-old files and make sure they're PD in the US as well, and tagged accordingly. Because the affected number of files is very large (1.2 million+), it is not feasible to execute this review by myself, and I believe the category will facilitate collaboration with others who want to help. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are there templates? I guess there should only be files. --Quedel (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

These are mostly for books, which are uploaded page-by-page and use a template for the description of each file, to avoid redundancy. They all have the same copyright tag, so it goes in the same template. See e.g. Template:Actensammlung aus der Zeit der Helvetischen Republik used on File:HV_01_567.jpg through File:HV_01_592.jpg. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The review this category was originally created for was halted and new ones are being discussed, so deletion for now would be fine. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nunneries

Isn't a nunnery the same thing as a convent? There is already a category "Convents". Maybe the categories referring to nunneries should be renamed or merged with their corresponding "convent" category, if any. Auntof6 (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably not, per en:Convent: “A convent is either a community of priests, religious brothers, religious sisters, or nuns, or the building used by the community, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Anglican Communion.” en:Monastery: “The name convent tends to be used (inaccurately) for the buildings accommodating female monastics (nuns).” --Rosenzweig τ 17:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean that a nunnery is specifically a residence, and could be part of a convent? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about that, English is a foreign language for me :-) --Rosenzweig τ 11:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A nunnery is a convent for nuns only. So there should be several types of convents. That is real specialisation ;). --Foroa (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wireless_communications

should be moved up one step to Category:Radio telecommunications, radio and wireless are the same Cqdx (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As an alternative, could be renamed to "Wireless communicatons (short-range)", to have a category for WLAN and the like. --Cqdx (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Historic_buildings_in_the_United_States

Indefinite subject; most members are HABS which is definite and should be in the name Jim.henderson (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Jim. "Historic" is unworkably vague. "HABS" is useful, as are the existing categories related to National Register of Historic Places and the various state and local Historic Places categories and Landmark categories. - Jmabel ! talk 16:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. HABS is specific and easily definable, and it's something people look for. Same with various landmark categories (NYC, Chicago, NRHP, NHL etc.) the boundaries of which are crystal clear. I don't see the value in "Historic" categories -- the images in them should be re-folded into the places they came from. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree, restore former image source categories with HABS name.—Look2See1 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Template talk:PD-USGov-Interior-HABS, this seems to have been created to replace the HABS categories. What's wrong with referring to HABS in the category names? It's far more specific than "Historic buildings", which is quite subjective; if you take the Thorncrown Chapel and a nineteenth-century Underground Railroad stop, most people will choose the Underground Railroad stop, but this category (because it's meant for designated properties) will go with the Chapel. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have a pretty strong consensus here. These nominations have a tendency to stay open much too long. I say give it 3 more days - until February 15, when it will have been open more than two whole weeks - and unless someone comes in clearly disagreeing, it is time to act on this. - Jmabel ! talk 21:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind if this category gets deleted. I do mind if a habs category tree gets created. Why? At Commons intersecting source categories (HABS is a source) with topic categories (location, buildings, etc) is bad practice because it actually makes it harder for people to find images. We don't want to end up with Category:Statue of Liberty from HABS and Category:Statue of Liberty from Wiki Loves Monuments etc etc. Multichill (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see HABS category be intersected with other stuff. But it's presumably useful in and of itself (as a source category). - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would there need to be a HABS category tree? The tates and the major cities: NYC, Chicago, DC, San Francisco, LA there's only a handful, that's all it needs. I don't consider myself to be exceedingly stupid, but I'm just not understanding the problem that this category is supposed to address. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

All right; perhaps I am failing to appreciate the dreadfulness of intersecting source categories with topical ones, but anyway any such danger can be avoided. Make a HABS building recognition category rather than a HABS source cat. Put Category:Statue of Liberty into something like a Category:HABS buildings in New York to go along with its Landmark, Heritage Site, NRHP and similar categories that are awarded by a governing body.

I am surprised to see that people want to add all sorts of source related categories, and nobody seems to worry about the top level. There are all sorts of sources such as Historic American Survey, (former) National Register of Historic Places, and probably dozens of other local initiatives. Moreover, many of them lead to a large extent to the same buildings but at the top level, they are mostly unrelated if we look in Category:Buildings in the United States. So it makes no sense to add yet another category tree to that without organising the top level. --Foroa (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Jmabel's 15 Febuary deadline, and just restoring/creating HABS for 50 state categories only — none for cities or landmarks (ie: Statue of Liberty above). It was formerly very useful having states' subcategories. Multichill (talk) seems to have disappeared after changing those former HABS by state subcategories into [Category:Historic buildings in state] ones, and promising a massive HABS upload — no responses here, at Category talk:Historic buildings in the United States, or at User_talk:Multichill#Category:Historic_buildings_in_the_United_States ? Meanwhile, could there simply be [Category:Historic American Buildings Survey in state] or [Category:Historic American Buildings Survey of state] subcategories of Category:Historic American Buildings Survey ?—Look2See1 (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not major cities as well? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What I don't want to see is where a picture disappears into a "HABS in such-and-such place" category to the exclusion of all other categories for that place. Not a risk for big cities, but could be for anything much smaller, where there are no other categories in the hierachy below the place itself. - Jmabel ! talk 01:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I'm suggesting only the 50 states and the largest cities -- or the cities with a significant number of HABS entries -- and no medium & small cities, towns, counties, villages, whatever. It just seems silly to exclude, for instance, New York City and Chicago, when those cities (and some others) are going to have more entries than some of the states. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd endorse that. Limit to roughly the 20 largest/most historic cities? Or an even smaller number? - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd go for an even smaller number: a dozen or maybe even a half-dozen. I would let the numbers of HABS entries in a city determine it, or, if we don't know that in advance, start with the 10 most populous cities in 1933 (when HABS began) and add to it any of the 10 most populous cities today that aren't already included, and weed down from there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You can define what you want, people will create deeper categories anyway. --Foroa (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What can be created, can be uncreated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And we can cross that bridge when we come to it. No less likely to happen than the present badly named categories. - Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Consider this my endorsement for closing this discussion and doing the renames to HABS per BMK's proposal. I'm too deep in other stuff right now to have the time to act on it. - Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Abraj_Al_Bait_Towers_Clock

Contains only COM:FOP#Saudi Arabia violations. 84.61.139.62 19:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 Keep File:Clock-on-11-08-10.jpg was kept. --84.61.139.62 16:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Clocks_in_Saudi_Arabia

Contains only subcategories which are nominated for deletion. 84.61.139.62 19:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Would be surprised that there are no ancient clocks in Saoudi. --Foroa (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

December 2011

Category:Daily_life_in_Zanjan

Quite superfluous category that is actually not needed: the "daily life" is shown on almost every pic that is taken. The images in this category should betterly categorised in well-known Commons-cats like "Streets in ..." or "Buildings in ..." or something like that 80.187.103.72 17:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Guillermo_Tolentino

No freedom of panorama in the Philippines, and the sculptor death is 1976. So his works are not in the public domain yet.. Frédéric (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

 Keep There might be sculptures situated in countries with freedom of panorama. Nominate individual files for deletion where appropriate. If the category ends up empty, it can still be deleted. --rimshot^talk 16:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

 

I'm preparing the mass deletion requests for the files, but we've at least one de minimis file (and I'm not going to nominate it) in the category: File:UP-OuezonHall-1.jpg, so the Rimshot opinion makes sense. --Dereckson (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Created, cf. Commons:Deletion requests/Guillermo Tolentino statues. --Dereckson (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Radio_HCJB

To change radio station category from non-standard name to standard English Wikipedia and native es.wiki name. Closeapple (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Background: I attempted to change this from Category:Radio HCJB to Category:HCJB. It was redirected back to Category:Radio HCJB with the edit summary "Commons does not support acronyms". However:

1. It's not primarily an acronym. It's a call sign. Radio and television stations have them. They are still very common in the Americas and in Japan, as well as with every amateur radio operator on Earth. Maybe the owners of HCJB asked for a specific call sign that they could attach to a cute motto, but regardless, it is a government-issued license ID.
2. I don't see how adding the word "Radio" before it makes it less of an acronym. Nearly every station in Category:Radio stations in Canada, Category:Radio stations in Japan, Category:Radio stations in Mexico, and Category:Radio stations in the United States is the call sign without other words.
3. I don't see any Commons policy that says acronyms are prohibited (or not supported) when they're the main and unambiguous name. Category:BBC,Category:MTV, Category:UNESCO, Category:UNICEF.

--Closeapple (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

We try to avoid acronyms on Commons as they are very culture specific, and we do certainly not create new ones. Most of the radios and TV stations will have a disambiguation term overtime. COM:CAT states "The category name would be enough to guess the subject,"; HCJB does this maybe for a small part of the world, bus does not correspond to the basic rule. Moreover, the official name is 'HCJB Global". God knows what other meanings HCJB will have in Russia, China, Arab countries, Japan, ... --Foroa (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If we are using "Radio" to distinguish the station HCJB in Quito from HCJB Global (its parent organization), then that makes sense. (It is doubtful that there will be other significant meanings in other languages from now on: HCJB Global has now expanded around the world and uses "HCJB" as a brand name, even though it originally referred only to the shortwave station with the Ecuadorian call sign.) It might be more appropriate, with that in mind, to make this category "HCJB in Quito" to distinguish this original facility in Ecuador from the other, newer ones that are merely branded as HCJB instead; then have "HCJB Global" as a parent category if there are images or other media about its other stations. --Closeapple (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There are several HCJB companies and products. Proposal is fine with me. --Foroa (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Functions_in_economics

"Functions in economics" is an entirely meaningless description. Every and all economic diagram (existing, maintained category at Category:Economic diagrams) can be described using mathematical functions. Indeed, the functions are entirely tangential to the point of having a diagram in the first place; if you just used functions, there would be no need for a diagram. In other words, the diagrams do not illustrate functions; the functions and diagrams both describe the same thing.

Therefore, suggest upmerge to Category:Economic diagrams. I will personally then go through and recategorise into appropriate subcats where appropriate. Regards, Jarry1250 (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I stopped categorizing economic stuff by diagram, chart, or graph. I don't waste time on that. So I support deleting this function category. I prefer to categorize by the topic of the diagram, chart, or graph. Usually as a subcategory of Category:Economic statistics. The rest that don't fit there I let others deal with. So I guess putting them in Category:Economic diagrams is fine for now. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I do forsee an inevitable upmerge from charts and graphs to statistics. But I think diagrams can and should remain separate. Either way, functions is meaningless. Jarry1250 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Tabakscheune_in_der_Ludwigstraße_(Hockenheim)

category name should be in English because this building seems not to have a specific name that mustn't be translated 80.187.97.105 15:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree: Tabakscheune is a common name and not a generic term in this case. Nobody in his right mind would search for a tobacco-barn in Hockenheim.--Wuselig (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• I partly agree: Tabakscheune should stay because it seems to be a so called "Eigenname". in der Ludwigstraße (Hockenheim) should be in english. --High Contrast (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Tabakscheune (Ludwigstraße, Hockenheim) without "in der/in the" would be a better, simple and more language neutral naming. --:bdk: 14:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Past_in_the_United_Kingdom

Unnecessary category. Duplicates Category:History of the United Kingdom. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that this discussion should really be taking place at Category:Past, the global category. The United Kingdom category has been created to mirror the global categories. I would tend to agree with you.

Category:Past is a subcategory of Category:Abstract and Category:Time. Category:Abstract leads through Category:Psychology and Category:Social sciences, where it branches into Category:Academic disciplines and Category:Scientific disciplines to Category:Academia and Category:Science respectively at the Topic level. Category:History, on the other hand, is a topic in its own right.

For all the subcategories of Category:Past, it seems odd that Category:Buildings by former association, Category:Buildings by former function, Category:Cancelled subjects, Category:Heritage, Category:Memory, Category:No longer existent subjects and Category:Old signs have no link whatever to Category:History.

Certainly the links through to Category:Academia and Category:Science need to be maintained. I would suggest moving the subcategories of Category:Past to Category:History, and making Category:History, in addition to a global Topic, a subcategory of Category:Past, which would have no other subcategories. It seems preferable to maintain Category:Past alongside Category:Future in both Category:Abstract and Category:Time. Alternatively, Category:Past could be abolished completely, and Category:History made a subcategory of both Category:Abstract and Category:Time in addition to being a global Topic.

I have copied this discussion to Category:Past, where I have opened a new category for discussion, and would suggest all future comments are made there. Once the global categories are sorted, we can then change the United Kingdom categories to match whatever is decided. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/12/Category:Past

I have no real concern with Category:Past - I don't object to your proposal over there, but I also don't have a huge concern with the existing situation. It's great if you want to raise the larger issue, but I would prefer to focus on this more discrete issue and not have it get lost in the bigger discussion. There may be reasons why the global category would be kept, but they wouldn't apply here. Regardless of what happens with the larger Category:Past, this subcategory is pointless, as it unnecessarily duplicates what Category:History of the United Kingdom is already doing. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Past

The following is copied from Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/12/Category:Past in the United Kingdom, as it applies to the global category. Whatever is decided can then be mirrored at the United Kingdom level. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary category. Duplicates Category:History of the United Kingdom. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My issue is with the subcategory. I don't have a strong opinion in respect of this parent category. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that this discussion should really be taking place at Category:Past, the global category. The United Kingdom category has been created to mirror the global categories. I would tend to agree with you.

Category:Past is a subcategory of Category:Abstract and Category:Time. Category:Abstract leads through Category:Psychology and Category:Social sciences, where it branches into Category:Academic disciplines and Category:Scientific disciplines to Category:Academia and Category:Science respectively at the Topic level. Category:History, on the other hand, is a topic in its own right.

For all the subcategories of Category:Past, it seems odd that Category:Buildings by former association, Category:Buildings by former function, Category:Cancelled subjects, Category:Heritage, Category:Memory, Category:No longer existent subjects and Category:Old signs have no link whatever to Category:History.

Certainly the links through to Category:Academia and Category:Science need to be maintained. I would suggest moving the subcategories of Category:Past to Category:History, and making Category:History, in addition to a global Topic, a subcategory of Category:Past, which would have no other subcategories. It seems preferable to maintain Category:Past alongside Category:Future in both Category:Abstract and Category:Time. Alternatively, Category:Past could be abolished completely, and Category:History made a subcategory of both Category:Abstract and Category:Time in addition to being a global Topic.

I have copied this discussion to Category:Past, where I have opened a new category for discussion, and would suggest all future comments are made there. Once the global categories are sorted, we can then change the United Kingdom categories to match whatever is decided. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure of the issue at debate here. I would simply make the "history" cat a subcategory of "past". Not all things that belong into past belong into history, but the reverse is true. The question of what to do with the country subcategories of past is relevant though, because it would drop history one level lower. Ingolfson (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above, but past should not be propagated deeper per country. --Foroa (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ships_by_name_by_type

This category should be a subcategory of Category:Ships by type and Category:Ships by name, not Category:Ships by naming. Badzil (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Ships by name is and should be a standard meta category "by name". It should be used analogously as other meta categories "by name" and other similar meta categories. --ŠJů (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ships by naming now redirects to Category:Ships by name, and Category:Ships by name by type is now a subcategory of the latter. So this CfD is now redundant, it seems. Rd232 (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ships by name, as a "by name" category is meant to include all categories about specific ships as direct subcategories. As a sample, we don't want to find some ships in Category:Paddle steamers by name or Category:Ships with Maori names and others in Category:Ships by name. All should be in Ships by name. Searching in Ships by name should allow to retrieve only categories about specific ships. There are a series of lists generated on a daily basis that rely on that.
  
  Ships by name by type is not about a specific ship. Its inclusion in Category:Ships by name was previously discussed and no consensus found (Category talk:Ships by name#Inclusion of subcategories not about specific ships). It can be listed as a related category on Category:Ships by name, but, unless we want to change the structure of Category:Ships by name, it shouldn't be a direct subcategory. I don't think there is any inconvenience if it's listed as a "see also" category on Category:Ships by name nor is there anything you couldn't do if it's listed there in such a way. It can be added to Category:Ships by naming, to Category:Ship names or elsewhere if you prefer. Feel free to make new suggestions. --  Docu  at 08:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A paddle steamer is a ship and therefore, Category:Paddle steamers by name should be a sub-category of Category:Ships by name. This is the normal behavior throughout Commons. If it causes technical problems (list generation), then these should be resolved. If you want to have all ships listed under Category:Ships by name, then we need to specify that we exceptionally allow over-categorization. Badzil (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of "by name" categories is to include all elements in a given field. We started creating them when we noticed the absence of such flat categories lead to endless subcategory trees. --  Docu  at 13:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

We have established standards how to use meta categories like "...by name" and similar. It is very desirable to keep consistency and don't exclude just ships from these rules. It is a standard that meta category contains not only individual elements (ordered standardly by alphabet) but also subordinate meta categories at the top of the category. If your bot doesn't know this rule, you should teach it that and "explain" to it, that the meta categories at the top of the category are not categories of individual ships. --ŠJů (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There are two different things:

1. "by name" categories
2. "meta categories".

"by name" categories were already extensively discussed.

{{MetaCat}} summarizes "meta categories" as follows: "This meta category should only contain other categories. Files should either be in the relevant subcategory or in the parent category.". Thus we still need to define what categories we include.
As there seems to be no practial advantage to include Category:Ships_by_name_by_type in Category:Ships by name, there isn't really any reason why we should add it there. --  Docu  at 18:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"by name" is a standard meta category just as "by registration number", "by color", "by operator", "by country" etc. We have established rules how to use meta categories. We don't need some unreasonable anomalies. Meta categories with two criteria are standardly categorized by both of them. There is no reason to violate this principle just here. --ŠJů (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing a few categories by name by something (Category:People by name by country, Category:Lighthouses by name by country and Category:People by name by year), I agree with the current categorization of this category. Badzil (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically a "by type" category, not a "by name" one. It organizes "ships by name" by type (it's subcats are what are ordered by name). It's confusing until you look at the contents but I can't think of any other way to phrase it. Anyway, I guess that's not what this is about. Rocket000 (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:LGBT people

User:Botaurus is deleting this categories from all pages. Althoug I may or may not agree with his action, I think that one single person may not erase one category without previously discussing the matter with the rest of us. So I am opening a discussion about it. I want to have my say on the matter too. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for beginning.
First there was once the question of the people should be categorized here.
Should it be all same-sexfeeling persons, similar to the „pink list“ in Nazi Germany?
Or should there be the artists and politicians who play an active role in the LGBT sector?
I think the second would be the right way. And at least it should be linked to a Wikipedia article, which is occupied. Yes, I therefore politicians have taken from these categories, because her homosexuality has nothing to do with their policies.Botaurus (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(Please sorry for my bad english.) I don't understand the sense of remouving the categories LGBT by all these people. 1) We have people from 2500 or more years, that lived in a manner or another that we call today homosexuality. Is not important if they was artist, or philosopher, or lovers, or men of power, or warriors, or politicisians, or famous industrials, or (today) LGBT activists. We have a cat of LGBT people (LGBT is of course a modern concept), that we can use for all these people they are universally know as homosexuals, although for many people it is not possible ho have a sourse which states that. Please remember that the freedom that we live now was not in the past, and 60 years ago to say to be an homosexual, they risked their lives. And not only in Germany but also in many other nations. So for the most of them, which source is possible? 2) To categorize a person in the LGBT cat is not a joke. For all people who have a historical culture is very clear and ascertained for example that Antinous was "gay" (he was the lover of emperor Hadrian); Von Gloeden was "gay" and used his aesthetic taste in making artistic pictures of male nudes, etc. Why somebody removed LGBT people by Friedrich Alfred Krupp? It is too outrageous for a very important German industrialist? But he was forced to flee from Capri to the scandal caused by his homosexuality. And where are the source of this? His suicide? or the neapolitan local newspapers of the beginning of the 20th century, are they sufficient or are they only gossip...? 3) I think that it is absurd to require evidence of homosexuality or the source of it for people who are universally acknowledged homosexuals from the cultural world, until they become landmarks and symbols of the history of "homosexuality" (today better to say LGBT). So I strongly disagree with removing the main and the sub cats of LGBT people where they was done. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The definition for LGBT (in German Wikipedia) says; LGBT its standing outsite from the native (heterosexual) society (why, I dont no). The people with other preferences lived in the history in the middle of the society. There was allegedly not even a word for it. For many people lack the evidence, there are only rumors. And the most living people live their homosexuality private. They do not want to be stigmatized by such categories (denunciation). These are violations of your privacy rights. We also have no explicit category for heterosexuals. As described above, in living people should only be included LGBT activists. Dead men can not defend themselves. But rumors are gossip. Sources are always good. Maybe it was Antinous not a gay but he has held out the ass just because he made ​​life easier. About the exact relationship of Antinous to Hadrian, there is with little information. Poetry and truth go hand in hand. Who needs these categories? sorry for my english. greetings Botaurus (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss about living people. But the most part of our category people are historical people. It's absurd to apply modern concept to past times. Was Socrates a pink triangle or a LGBT activist? To say that a king of Great Britain or of France or of Prussia was a LGBT people, is this a violation of his privacy rights or an impediment to his own defense? This is simply history. We are not nazis, we are not in nazis time, and we ar not committed to creating lists of discrimination. We want only create categories to order pictures and historical or artistic photographs, with all theyr features, geographical, historical, by job, and by theyr sexual tendency too, if a person was gay. Of course there is not a heterosexual category, because this tendency doesn't change anything in the life of the person (at least I think so), while to be homosexual or transgenger this changes a lot (or all) things in the life of the person. And this can be interesting in the (historical) understanding of a person. And so it needs a category. --DenghiùComm (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. If Botarus were consistent, he should have also asked for deletion of Category:Communists, or Category:Roma people, or Category:Jewish people, which were all sent to nazi KZ together with lgbt people. Strangely, only for lgbt peopke this seems to be a problem.
For a minority group which has been affected by invisibility for centuries (lots of laws and rules such as the Hay code openly forbade mentioning or evens showing lgbt people!), becoming visible is a political goal. If Botaurus has a political problem with this, this place is a democratic place, and he should tell us so, so that we can discuss about it. But he should not refrain from discussion. This is my point.
Futhermore, if Botaurus merely had a problem with the use of modern words for ancient people, then we could create a more historically proper "Sodomite people" category instead. Would we? Of course, we should also delete Category:People of Germany, since Germany come into being only after 1870, and put "People of the Sacred Roman Empire" for anyone born before 1870 instead. But, strangely again, this proposal did not come out. The problem is always and alone with gay people. How queer...
As for Pluschow, as a researcher on his life, I shall happily mention the condemnation for pimping with boys he got in 1907, which obliged him to expatriate from Italy. http://www.giovannidallorto.com/gloeden/pluschow/pluschow.html Here is the verdict of the trial: http://www.oliari.com/ricerche/sentenzaplueschow.html If Botaurus knows nothing about it, that's it, but he should not ASSUME something only from the fact he is ignorant about it. He can always ask before deleting, in the future.
P.S. I would like to call the attention on the question "how do you know?". First, most people in this category are self-defined gays. And, yes, we have the right to call ourselves what we like best. Second, the question goes both ways. How can you assume Antinous was straight? Can you PROVE it? No, unless you assume that anyone is straight, unless s/he is caught in the act by the police. Luckily, sexual orientation does not work this way. If you can prove Antinous was straight, then go ahead. But the only reason you know about him, is that he was Hadrian's lover. Otherwise, the world would have never heard of him. By deleting this "detail" from this encyclopedia, you delete the only reason why he is into an encyclopedia. To my eyes, this is nonsensical. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify something else here, my deletion request did not refer not to the category shown above. It was about the category of Category:LGBT people by name here. For the removal or replacement of individual people in different categories, it does not need this disk-page. I mean, there is the theme of mistaken.--Botaurus (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

For today's persons, it's violating personality rights (unless the person is an LGBT activist, in which case the category could be labelled as such). For historic persons, it's 1) anachronistic to use "LGBT" (a fashionable concept of today) and 2) just a guess in 99% of the cases. Let's get rid of this category altogether. Of course, media depicting or describing homosexual or LGBT or what you may call it policies, acts, etc. can and should be labelled in such categories. But we should categorize media, not people. --FA2010 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I support maintaining the category as it. For contemporary persons, if their homo/bisexuality is documented in reliable sources (and usually this determination has already occurred on Wikipedia in respect of such individuals), then include them. Typically, this would include persons who have publicly declared their sexual orientation or gender identity. Individuals who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual would not be listed.

To suggest that we only include "LGBT activists" or persons who play a role in the "LGBT sector" (whatever that is) is just odd (since that isn't a test we use on any other similar category trees), and the suggestion that inclusion violates the "personality rights" of the individuals is simply incorrect (as long as inclusion is based on reliable sources, as discussed above). For historic persons we generally follow the same rule. In some cases (e.g. Oscar Wilde), the homosexuality is well documented, so inclusion should be a no-brainer. For others (e.g. Socrates, to use the example used above), sexual orientation/identity is merely speculative, so they would not be included. I find this to be quite straightforward. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Blackwater_Worldwide

The company's name has been changed to Academi. Propose renaming to Category:Academi (private military company). Gobonobo (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As with many historical categories that contain a certain history and media, the top level category should contain the latest name, the subcategories referering to their previous period should be conserved. Blackwater was for example active in Iraq, but Academi will probably not. I think that over time, many media will surface that refer specifically to the Blackwater period. --Foroa (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Foroa. Should be kept as subcategory of Academi for the era when the entity was known as Blackwater, perhaps its best known and most historically important time. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Volga_GAZ-M-21_(1956_-_1958)

The period of time is overlapping with Category:Volga GAZ-M-21 (1956 - 1962) 80.187.96.31 16:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's because in case of some pictures it's impossible to say whether the examples of Volga GAZ-M-21 on them were produced between 1956 and 1958 or between 1958 and 1962. The Category:Volga GAZ-M-21 (1956 - 1962) was created specifically for these kind of pictures.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Volga_GAZ-M-21_(1956_-_1962)

The period of time is overlapping with Category:Volga GAZ-M-21 (1956 - 1962). Nonsense?!?! 80.187.96.31 16:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

These bizarre double categories seem to exist only because there are three Fotothek photos in which one cannot tell whether the M21 pictured was built before or after the minor 1958 facelift. I argue to remove the confusing overlapping categories and placing those three photos back in the M21 main category, with the identification taking place in the caption. Mr.choppers (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So what you suggest is if we can't categorize the vehicles precisely we put them in the general category instead of trying to categorize them at least partially?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's because in case of some pictures it's impossible to say whether the examples of Volga GAZ-M-21 on them were produced between 1956 and 1958 or between 1958 and 1962. The Category:Volga GAZ-M-21 (1956 - 1962) was created specifically for these kind of pictures.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I most sincerely suggest that since we cannot fit these three shots into a very precise category, we place them into the more general category of Category:Volga_GAZ-M-21. The cars can then be described as 1956-1962 in the image captions, which will cause much less confusion than the current overlapping categories. Best, Mr.choppers (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, all sub-categories should go directly under Category:Volga GAZ-M-21/GAZ-21, which makes an intermediate Category:Volga GAZ-M-21 and artificial Category:Volga GAZ-M-21 (1956 - 1962) redundant. Pibwl (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Historical_revisionism_(negationism)

Delete or rename - Category created in bad faith and of duious practical use (I believe there already exists a category for hr) Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ship_types_with_two_masts

This category should be merged with Category:Two-masted ships. Badzil (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? --  Docu  at 19:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Because they contain the same thing: ships with two masts. The separation that you just made has for a consequence that all ships in Category:Brigantines are not listed anymore under Category:Two-masted ships. This is undesired as it makes the discovery of images through category-browsing more difficult. Badzil (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it doesn't as your edits just added Category:Godspeed (ship, 2006) to two-masted ships. --  Docu  at 19:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This is because this ship is not strictly-speaking a brigantine, as it doesn't have two masts. A brigantine is a ship that has two masts, and therefore it should be categorized under Category:Two-masted ships. Badzil (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A brigantine is not a ship, but a type of ship. Godspeed is a ship. Thus Godspeed should be in either Category:Two-masted ships or Category:Three-masted ships and Category:Brigantines in Category:Ship types with two masts.

If we amalgamate individual ships with type categories, we make the discovery of images through-category browsing more difficult. We wouldn't by able to rely anymore on Category:Ships by number of masts indicating the number of masts in subcategories. --  Docu  at 20:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So what do you do with Category:Irving Johnson (ship, 2002)? Should we recategorize all the ships in Category:Ketches in Category:Two-masted ships? Badzil (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I added Category:Irving Johnson (ship, 2002) to Category:Two-masted ships. This way Category:Ships by number of masts can remain as reliable as it was. --  Docu  at 20:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. What about Category:Asgard II (ship, 1981)? You probably see where I'm going from here... Badzil (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It takes just a couple of minutes to add them and sort out the exceptions. The main reason I skipped Category:Two-masted ships when building Category:Ships by number of masts is that it does take a bit more effort to build than the others with much less benefit. --  Docu  at 20:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I do appreciate the effort you put into the classification of ships, copying all ships in Category:Ketches to Category:Two-masted ships seems unnecessary. Why create a monster-category when it can be divided into subcategories? Where is the advantage? Badzil (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Godspeed (ship, 2006) shouldn't appear when searching for two-masted ships. --  Docu  at 20:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Because it is miscategorized in Category:Brigantines. This ship has three masts, therefore it is not a brigantine. See Merriam-Webster. I corrected the error. Badzil (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
OK. Now that the categories of Category:Godspeed (ship, 2006) have been fixed, can we go back to the main question? Should we recategorize all the ships in Category:Ketches, Category:Brigantines and Category:Brigs (ship) in Category:Two-masted ships? Badzil (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much use in finding other exceptions if you don't want the ships to be sorted into Category:Two-masted ships. Maybe we should delete Category:Two-masted ships entirely as it doesn't fit into Category:Ships by number of masts. --  Docu  at 22:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting to delete also the categories Category:Three-masted ships and related? Badzil (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the other subcategories of Category:Ships by number of masts are more straightforward.

Obviously, there is an advantage in having 1 to 7 at Category:Ships by number of masts as it would allow to systematically sort all sailing ships by mast and make this easily available. --  Docu  at 22:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have some trouble understanding you. I don't quite get why only Category:Two-masted ships should be deleted. And why doesn't it "fit into Category:Ships by number of masts"? I also don't quite get why Category:Three-masted ships is more straightforward than Category:Two-masted ships. Badzil (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

3-7 only include categories of about specific ships that do have the defined number of masts. Two-masted ships, given what you insist on including is a mixture leading to other things, including ships with three masts and tends to contaminate what used to be a clear structure. --  Docu  at 23:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've checked Category:Brigantines, Category:Brigs (ship), Category:Ketches and Category:Yawls, corrected some errors of categorization and, unless I missed an error, they only contain ships with two masts (as they should).

I don't mind if both categories Category:Ship types with two masts and Category:Two-masted ships stay, but the current categorization of the four sub-categories needs to stay as it is. Badzil (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your main concern seems to be that some subcategories of (e.g.) Category:Ketches couldn't be found through Category:Two-masted ships. If I make sure that this is possible, would you mind if I remove Category:Ketches from Category:Two-masted ships and just leave it in Category:Ship types with two masts? --  Docu  at 07:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I do mind as it is a basic a case of subcat/overcat. All the ships in these subcategories are ships with two masts. So somehow all the ships in these subcategories must have Category:Two-masted ships as a parent. A cat see also is not sufficient. Badzil (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should just add Category:Two-masted ships into Category:Ship types with two masts. --  Docu  at 22:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe we should make a single category named Category:Two-masted ships. Badzil (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there any downside with adding Category:Two-masted ships into Category:Ship types with two masts? It would nicely allow to differenciate between ships with 2 masts and other categories like the one for Godspeed and Category:Toronto Brigantine Society. --  Docu  at 12:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please make it clear how Category:Godspeed (ship, 2006) and Category:Toronto Brigantine Inc. fit in Category:Ship types with two masts and/or Category:Two-masted ships? Badzil (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
That would be:

• Category:Ship types with two masts
  • Category:Brigantines
    1. Category:Godspeed (ship, 2006)
    2. Category:Toronto Brigantine Society
    3. Category:Asgard II (ship, 1981)
  • Category:Two-masted ships
    • Category:Asgard II (ship, 1981)

So the two wouldn't fit into Category:Two-masted ships, but Category:Ship types with two masts only (through Category:Brigantines). --  Docu  at 18:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

At least, that was before you edited Category:Toronto Brigantine Society. --  Docu  at 19:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain your thinking behind this organization? Why is Category:Godspeed (ship, 2006) in Category:Brigantines? Did you list Category:Asgard II (ship, 1981) as a general example for all ships in Category:Brigantines or is it special? Badzil (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Both can arguably be added into Category:Brigantines (according to what other users added/en WP state). Asgard is a general sample. --  Docu  at 19:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you plan to add Category:Two-masted ships to all subcategories of Category:Brigantines ("a vessel with two masts" en:Brigantine), Category:Brigs (ship) ("a sailing vessel with two square-rigged masts" en:Brig), Category:Ketches ("a sailing craft with two masts" en:Ketch) and Category:Yawls ("a two-masted sailing craft" en:Yawl)? Badzil (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

See my comment at 20:46, 14 December 2011 above. --  Docu  at 06:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If I understand well, your answer to my question is "yes" and you want to add the category Category:Two-masted ships to all brigantines, brigs, ketches and yawls. In my opinion, this is unnecessary and unwanted. Also there are no exceptions anymore as what you consider exceptions were miscategorizations that I corrected. Badzil (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why you removed Category:Toronto Brigantine Society (or the name it was renamed to) from Category:Brigantines. Can you explain? --  Docu  at 19:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A charity is not a ship therefore should not be categorized in Category:Brigantines. If pictures of people of the charity are added to this category, then they shouldn't be categorized as ships. Badzil (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be an organization dedicated to brigantines. As such it can be included in Category:Brigantines (the ship type). Obviously it wouldn't be added into Category:Two-masted ships. --  Docu  at 20:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's nor a ship, not a ship type and is already categorized as Category:Sailing organizations. This seems sufficient to me. Badzil (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's not a ship type, but it seems to be a sailing organization specific to a ship type. Thus it's logical to include it in Category:Brigantines. --  Docu  at 20:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure you want to contaminate Category:Brigantines with something that is not a two-masted ship, do you? Badzil (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
Actually, if you look at the structure above [my comment from 18:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)], you will notice that this wont happen. --  Docu  at 07:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

To make it easier to visualize, I implemented it. If it's problematic, we can obviously still undo it easily.

I will also try to add the remaining ships from Category:Tall ships into Category:Ships by number of masts. --  Docu  at 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Most ships in Category:Sailing ships and Category:Tall ships are now sorted in Category:Ships by number of masts.

A conclusion one may draw for this category is that few ships are actually in subcategories of Category:Ship types with two masts other than Category:Two-masted ships. So adding the few missing ones into Category:Two-masted ships hardly increases the number of ships there.

I also noticed that Wikipedia in some languages systematically notes the number of masts in articles or even the infobox, while, e.g. the English language version rarely notes it or categorizes ships accordingly. --  Docu  at 05:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What about ship types that may have two masts, like most schooner types? If these ship type categories are not divided, then there should be a {{cat see also}} or similar for them. --LPfi (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is of course worse with Category:Ship types with three masts. I know no western 19th century ship type with three masts that cannot have four or five masts. Should it be "three or more masts"? --LPfi (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably yes. --  Docu  at 20:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I rename it accordingly. --  Docu  at 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

According to what? There is currently no consensus on this issue. Your renaming created over-categorization. Please wait for a consensus before renaming. Badzil (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You hadn't commented on the issue raised by LPfi. Can you explain why this should create over-categorization? --  Docu  at 23:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A lack of answer does not give you a consensus and therefore the right to make such significant modifications. I will answer your interrogations tomorrow when I will have more time to express my thoughts. Badzil (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a proposal LPfi made and there was a consensus for it.

Removing Category:Brigantines from the equivalent of Category:Toronto Brigantine Society is a proposal of yours. --  Docu  at 23:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the vessels known as "brigs" are distinct from "brigantines".

Don't some junks and dhows also have two masts?

I have no problem calling schooners, brigs, ketches "ships". I have seen all of these vessels called "tall ships". My understanding however is that in the days of sail only "ship-rigged" vessels were called ships. The famous US Navy Enterprise of the war with Tripoli was re-rigged from a schooner to a brig. I believe that during her period as a brig she was "US Brig Enterprise". Geo Swan (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Black_and_African_Jews

Doesn't seem particularly useful or well defined; judging by the images in the category, Category:Judaism by country should cover it. I suggest deleting this category and moving the images to the subcategories of Category:Judaism by country. Prof. Professorson (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:U.S._Route_1,_Key_West

Overly specific and incorrectly named category. US 1 in Key West, Florida is already adequately covered by this category's parent, Category:U.S. Route 1 in Florida. If the community elects to retain this category, it should be renamed to "U.S. Route 1 in Key West, Florida". TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

agree to rename. do not think that need to merge - this one is more specific and could better benefit the users. Deror avi (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Alexander_Kropholler

COM:FOP#The Netherlands. 84.61.131.15 19:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Could you be a little bit more specific? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

COM:FOP#The Netherlands: “Where incorporation of a work in a compilation is concerned, not more than a few of the works of the same author may be included.” --84.61.131.15 22:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep "Waar het betreft het overnemen in een compilatiewerk, mag van dezelfde maker niet meer worden overgenomen dan enkele van zijn werken." This refers to compilation works - stuff like coffee table books, not this collection of thumbnails. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep can we conclude this discussion please in favor of keeping this category? Discussion has last long enough, no support for deletion. Picasdre (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Royal Canadian Navy

In 1967 or so the Canadian Army, RCAF and RCN were merged, into one organization. The former naval equipment, ships, helicopters, auxiliary vessels, port facilities formed the "Maritime Command". In the last year or so the Army, RCAF and RCN were restored as separate organizations.

Currently Category:Royal Canadian Navy contains some subcategories for vessels, while most subcategories are under Category:Naval ships of Canada.

Personally, I don't care what happens -- except I would like to have the subcategories under one consistent organizational scheme.

I don't think there were any vessels commissioned, and retired during the "Maritime Command" period. I think all vessels were at least briefly part of the RCN. --Geo Swan (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Patrol vessels of Canada

Currently three of the five subcategories in this category are for fishery patrol vessels of the Canadian Coast Guard. USCG vessels are armed, serve with the USN during war time. I don't have a problem if they are included in a category about naval ships. But CCG vessels are unarmed, they are not naval vessels. --Geo Swan (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong opinion about categorising naval ships, as I am no expert in naval ships. Only prefer categorising without prefix and with year of completion, as the other ships have. But that is already in discussion at Category:Ships by name. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Kardovskogo_street_(Pereslavl)

There are no images of any street in this category. Simply duplicates other category. PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Lesnoy_lane_(Pereslavl)

There are no images of any street in this category. Simply duplicates other category. PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Sovetskaya_street_(Pereslavl)

There are no images of any street in this category. Simply duplicates other category. PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Konnaya_street_(Pereslavl)

There are no images of any street in this category. Simply duplicates other category. PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Churches_in_Diocese_of_Columbus

English usage requires "the" before "Diocese". Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Churches_in_Diocese_of_Nice

English usage requires "the" before "Diocese". Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Churches_in_Diocese_of_Lodi

English usage requires "the" before "Diocese". Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Churches_in_Diocese_of_Copenhagen

English usage requires "the" before "Diocese". Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Indian_Institute_of_Management_Rohtak

Empty Muhandes (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Focus_stacking_images_of_insect

Not proper use of English Hans 16:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Focus_stacking_images_of_unclassified_suject

Not proper use of English Hans 16:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Focus_stacking_images_of_arachnid

Not proper use of English Hans 16:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Focus_stacking_images_of_plant

Not correct English Hans 16:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Paintings_by_Anthony_van_Dyck_in_the_Czech_Republic

Empty Sammyday (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

 Keep, not empty anymore. --rimshot^talk 16:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:September 1990 in Finland

I request all year–month categories for Finland for the year 1999 and before (e.g. Category:September 1990 in Finland and Category:June 1999 in Finland) to be deleted. There are so few pictures taken in Finland from that time that there are no need to categorize them by month.

I don't object time based categorization or per country year–month categorization generally (I have personally created plenty of such categories.), but there has to be enough images to be categorized. If there are only few images, too precise categorization just makes it harder to find them. --Apalsola ^{t • c} 01:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I support this sytem for the Nordic states to stat by January 1990 until we get more older images. J 1982 (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's take 1992 as an example. At the moment there are only 17 images in the category and its sub-categories (apart from the "built in" category). Any useful per month categorization cannot be done until there are far more images taken in Finland in 1992. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 01:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The request also applies to YEAR in Finland by month meta categories. The present list of the categories in question:

• Category:1990 in Finland by month
• Category:1991 in Finland by month
• Category:1992 in Finland by month
• Category:1993 in Finland by month
• Category:1994 in Finland by month
• Category:1995 in Finland by month
• Category:1996 in Finland by month
• Category:1997 in Finland by month
• Category:1998 in Finland by month
• Category:1999 in Finland by month
• Category:September 1990 in Finland
• Category:December 1990 in Finland
• Category:December 1991 in Finland
• Category:July 1993 in Finland
• Category:April 1994 in Finland
• Category:June 1995 in Finland
• Category:June 1996 in Finland
• Category:December 1996 in Finland
• Category:June 1997 in Finland
• Category:June 1998 in Finland
• Category:August 1998 in Finland
• Category:June 1999 in Finland

––Apalsola ^{t • c} 01:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia_protected_templates

I believe this was a result of some template transwiki'ing from en.wp and no one realised the pre-existing categories made no sense on Commons. Someone then created the category pages simply because stuff was in it.. Rocket000 (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. It seems the inclusion of {{pp-template}} on transwiki'd templates is to blame. Looks like that template was imported later on and thus caused the categorization. I don't know. Rocket000 (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess that you are right. Best wishes. --Foroa (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I've nearly emptied the category. {{pp-template}} seems best redirect to {{protected}} - this will flag an error if the page is not protected (as it generally won't be, with that template applied). Rd232 (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Otherwise, I'm sure someone will create it again. :/ Thanks for emptying it. Rocket000 (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

November 2011

District of... renaming

Large undiscussed rename of UK geographical categories from Category:Forest of Dean to Category:District of Forest of Dean, and others. See User_talk:Skinsmoke#District_of... for some existing discussion.

This just looks like disambuggeration - in some cases we might usefully need to disambiguate two real entities as categories (maybe "town" and "district of town") and so such a rename makes sense. In most cases though, there was only ever one entity and so no need to disambiguate. The result of applying this new change there is simply to make the real, useful category empty and less prominent, whilst hiding the useful content under an unfamiliar neologism.

There is no need whatsoever for sibling categories to be named according to some identical formula. MediaWiki categorization operates by membership, not by string-matching.

This is a bad change and should be reverted. If it's useful in some cases for real disambiguation, then keep those. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Forest of Dean is not really the best example, because of, well, the Forest of Dean. "District of Forest of Dean" is awkward, but is the formal legal name for the district (so not a neologism, even if completely unfamiliar). That said, I'd prefer the disambiguation to be done after the name, as this makes HotCat and other Commons tools more useable; Forest of Dean District and Forest of Dean (district) - which matches the article on en.wp - are both viable options here.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In general terms, my views are expressed here.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We now have Category:Forest of Dean as an empty category. That dumps on our readers in a big way. Is that what we're supposed to do? Wikilawyering over pointless (and in this case, incorrect) subtleties of wiki authoring should never break site usability for unfamiliar readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not disagreeing on that point, I'm just pointing out the end goal for Forest of Dean will probably have some sort of disambiguation.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation there should probably be as Category:Forest of Dean (forest), as the historically least important taxon. The Forest is about boundaries, geology and community, far more than it is about trees. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Non-free_screenshot_listed_for_deletion

Empty category. 84.62.204.7 19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a maintenance category, filled by the template {{Screenshot}}. Due to its nature as speedy deletion category, any contents will soon be deleted, so that it appears unused most of the time. As long as the template is not deleted, the category should not be deleted either. --rimshot^talk 19:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete - Created by disruptive user who has been indefinitely blocked from all Wikimedia Projects. Will always be empty because it is not used by anyone else, and is redudant to the established speedy deletion categories. CT Cooper · talk 15:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Which user do you mean? The category was created 7 years ago by a user who is not blocked on Commons and Admin on English Wikipedia. Also, I don't see a specific speedy deletion template as problematic per se. If this is turning into a discussion of the template itself, I think you should nominate it for deletion. --rimshot^talk 21:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This category was created on the 22 October 2011 by Phanuruch8555 (talk · contribs) (edit, history), who has been globally blocked for high levels of crosswiki abuse, though I accept that on its own isn't a reason for deletion. I see now what has happened, with him adding this category to the template following creation (diff). The {{Screenshot}} has for years just put files into Category:Copyright violations, and I think further categories are not needed. I see Phanuruch8555 also created Category:Non-free logo listed for deletion, which appears to not be connected to any template. I think really both sub-categories should be deleted as unnecessary to administrators, particularity given that such sub-categories could grow to a near infinite list of different types of copyright violations. Failing that, they should at least be re-named as use of singular "screenshot" and "logo" isn't correct for a category. CT Cooper · talk 22:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I don't really have an opinion on the usefulness of the category, or both categories. I do think, however, that the template is useful. --rimshot^talk 19:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing against the templates. I stand corrected on Category:Non-free logo listed for deletion however, which is connected to Template:Logo. The logo category can be dealt with via a separate CfD once this one is resolved. CT Cooper · talk 20:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nude_or_partially_nude_females_with_fishnet_stockings

Out of scope. Categories fall like images under the project scope and such extremely fashion related categories are not with in the project scope. Or what comes next? "Nude or partially nude females with a 5 inch penis" or "Nude or partially nude females with a yello computer mouse in front of a green wall"??? 79.221.105.245 11:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

ia gree with deletion. In main category "Category:Nude or partially nude females" such type of subcategories are multipling!Ciaurlec (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Nicolas_Oudinot

See also Category:Nicolas Charles Oudinot Ji-Elle (talk) 08:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Risque de confusion entre ces deux catégories, le père et le fils se prénomment tous deux Nicolas Charles Ji-Elle (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC).

Solution possible : faire comme sur sl, où les dates sont indiquées après le nom (http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Oudinot). Jospe (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Association_football_logos_of_Argentina

All the logos listed here are copyrighted by the clubs they belong to. Fma12 (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Academical_village

See en:The Lawn — proper capitalisation is Category:Academical Village, not "Academical village". Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Kraken agrees: Looks like most respectable sources capitalize the two words. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Need disambiguation, there are hundreds of "Academic Villagess" over the world. --Foroa (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Expulsion_of_Adam_and_Eve

it seems to be a subcategory of Cherubs, when it should, if anything, be a subcategory of Angels, or of Adam & Eve, or Eden. It also contains two Annunciation subcategories, which should not be here either SiGarb (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

cherubs is a subcat of angels, and in this iconography are exactly cherubs, not some unknown angels. Why "or of Adam & Eve, or Eden"? And Adam & Eve, and Eden: 'cos Adam and Eve aren't always in Eden. All is OK with this categories. And two Annunciation subcategories are about Fra Angelico paintings, where in upper left part Expulsion story is depicted. Keep it all as it is. --Shakko (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I disagree on the placement of this Expulsion subcat; not all these paintings depict cherubim; the Expulsion was carried out by God, as is shown in several of the images, unaccompanied by angels or cherubim. So any pics without angels/cherubs should not be included here. Surely, therefore, the Expulsion should be a subcategory of Eden (and indeed, as you point out, of Adam & Eve), not of angels? Perhaps the category of the remaining pics with angelic figures in should be "Cherubim guarding Eden" or "Cherubic guardians"?

After (or at the time of?) the expulsion, cherubim were set to guard Eden, as was the flaming sword (which in the original story doesn't seem to be actually carried by any angel, or cherub!). In many of these pictures the artists have conflated several parts of the story. (Strictly, cherubim should have four wings and four faces – those of a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle/griffon vulture – but artists have, understandably, often simplified this iconography too.)

Cherubs have, of course, long been confused with putti in the popular imagination, and the word "cherubic" now refers to those plump little creatures, whereas if your child looked truly cherubic in the original sense you'd be terrified! The Cherubs subcat rightly excludes putti. But the imagery of angels has likewise become confused; angelic messengers in the Bible generally appear as men, without wings. Yet historically almost all depictions of angels pure and simple (as opposed to Seraphs, Thrones, Dominions etc etc), apart from the very earliest, mistakenly(?) show them with wings, presumably the better to differentiate them from the earthly people in the picture. SiGarb (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you waist too many energy to this subject. Commons is not text article in language wiki where verbatim accuracy is prefered. Categories at commons works as tags, as keywords - see how it is done in commercial photobanks. It is not possible to categorize everything with absolutely accuracy. Shakko (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed not, but where a category is unhelpfully or inaccurately situated, and could easily be put into a correct or more helpful position, it seems to be worth doing. Or are you now advocating a "well, that's close enough'" attitude? In that case, all those "putti" could be filed under cherubs, and all those cherubs could be simply left as angels (or fairies, or butterflies, or aircraft – they all have wings!) – it's close enough... :o) SiGarb (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this category is exactly right, and it's helpful. Nitpicking is not useful, on the other hand. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Annunciation_by_Fra_Angelico_(Cortona)

Should not be a subcategory of Expulsion of Adam & Eve. Possibly meant to be a subcat of Angels? SiGarb (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

1/3 of this painting represents 'Expulsion of Adam & Eve', see upper left File:Fra Angelico 069.jpg. All is OK with this cat. --Shakko (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, spot on; you got me there! Although it's hardly 1/3 of the painting; maybe 1/12 at most! Perhaps there could be a note on the subcat page pointing out that detail (which isn't immediately apparent, even on a full-sized image, let alone a thumbnail)? SiGarb (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Annunciation_by_Fra_Angelico_(Prado)

Should not be a subcategory of Expulsion of Adam & Eve. Possibly meant to be a subcat of Angels? SiGarb (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

1/3 of this painting represents 'Expulsion of Adam & Eve', see fragment File:Fra Angelico 096.jpg. All is OK with this cat. --Shakko (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And OK, you got me there, too! Perhaps there could be a note on the subcat page pointing out that detail? SiGarb (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Artificial_lakes

According to en:WP, an artificial lake is a reservoir: see en:Artificial lake. Two categories (Category:Artificial lakes and Category:Reservoirs) are therefore not required as it leads to confusion and pictures of similar objects being randomly separated in 2 categories. I suggest to keep Category:Reservoirs as the main one and transform Category:Artificial lakes into a redirection. Badzil (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

While there have been artificial lakes not built as reservoirs, the current drought of crazy all-powerful emperors (who might order an artificial lake built just to go boating) leaves the categories nearly synonymous. I agree that Reservoirs probably makes the most sense as the main category. --Kramer Associates (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved Category:Artificial lakes (and subcategories) to Category:Reservoirs. This discussion can be closed. Badzil (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Czech terminology use the word "jezero" (an equivalent of the English "lake") for such bodies of water which cannot be simply emptied, contrary to reservoirs or ponds which have any outflow device. Typical artificial lakes are flooded surface mines. River reservoirs hold by dams are usually not considered to be lakes.

I think, it is unhappy that Badzil made massive moves and mixed both types of water bodies together before this discussion was concluded. We can discuss better names for categories or a better category structure but dam reservoirs should not be mixed with (other types of) artificial lakes. --ŠJů (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite new to the usage of Commons and therefore did not know that I couldn't close a discussion by myself. This discussion was up for 2 weeks when I made the change and the only contribution agreed with my point of view.

I am open to discussion and I hope that if the two categories are to stay, an admin can massively revoke my contributions. But I continue to believe that these 2 categories are misleading and while moving and correcting categories, I saw many pictures that were incorrectly categorized. Badzil (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am unhappy with the idea of closing the articifial lakes category myself. Badzil didn't necessarily do something incorrect when he waited two weeks after the proposedl and then acted. But in many of such change proposal cases, there are not enough people seeing such changes being proposed until it "filters down" to their own watched files. That is a problem with the Commons system, not with Badzil's actions or this specific category.

I move that "Artificial lakes" be retained, as it covers man-made lakes much better that do NOT serve as reservoirs, but for various other purposes. Reservoirs can be linked to it via a "see also" link - because while many reservoirs are artificial, some are also natural lakes to start with, and thus it can't just be a nested category. Ingolfson (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that if we want to get rid of artificial lakes, it should be redirected to lakes, not reservoirs. An artificial lake is always a lake, but only occacionally a reservoir, at least the ones I know. --Foroa (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's simply not true that all artificial lakes are reservoirs, even if many are. This is a clear super-cat / sub-cat relationship. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason why this discussion failed is that many categories were finally deleted but only one category was previously marked with Cfd template. The only user which received link to the discussion was a moving bot, real users of the discussed categories received nothing.

I agree that many country subcategories of artificial lakes really were only duplicates of reservoir category. It is not amiss to merge them and subsequently again divide. However, for example the Czech category of artificial lakes (thanks to Mircea) was strictly different from the Czech category of reservoirs. If English language hasn't an exact equivalent of the Czech term "jezero", we should look for some indirect expression for artificial lakes which are not a dam reservoir (maybe, "excavated lakes"?). I think, dam reservoirs and excavated lakes are the main two types of artificial lakes. Do you think, some other type does exist? Oh, surely, an artificially filled natural hollow can be the third basic type. The fourth one can be vats (open cisterns, artificial basins) – sometime used as Firefighting reservoirs. --ŠJů (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Description of my actions.

FYI, here are the categories and files I moved from Artificial lakes to Reservoirs (or subcategories):

• Austria
  • Category:Schlegeisspeicher (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Austria; added Category:Reservoirs in Austria)
  • Category:Speicher Stillupp (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Austria; added Category:Reservoirs in Austria)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Category:Acumulation lake near Drinovci (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Bosnia and Herzegovina; added Category:Reservoirs in Bosnia and Herzegovina)
  • Category:Buško lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Bosnia and Herzegovina; added Category:Reservoirs in Bosnia and Herzegovina)
  • Category:Lake in Grahovčići (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Bosnia and Herzegovina; added Category:Reservoirs in Bosnia and Herzegovina)
• Bulgaria
  • File:Artificial lake kazanlak.jpg (− 4 categories; +Category:Kazanlak; ±Category:Reservoirs→Category:Reservoirs in Bulgaria)
• Chile
  • File:Laguna Parque O'Higgins.jpg (+Category:Artificial lakes of parks; ±Category:Reservoirs→Category:Reservoirs in Chile)
• Croatia
  • Category:Bajer (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Croatia; added Category:Reservoirs in Croatia)
  • Category:Jarun (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Croatia; added Category:Reservoirs in Croatia)
  • Category:Javorica Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Croatia; added Category:Reservoirs in Croatia)
• Czech Republic
  • Category:Benedikt Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
  • Category:Chabařovické jezero (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
  • Category:Chomoutovské jezero (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
  • Category:Dobříň sand mine (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
  • Category:Hromnické jezírko (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
  • Category:Lhota (jezero) (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
  • Category:Matylda Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
  • Category:Most Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
  • Category:Žernosecké jezero (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic; added Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
  • File:Darkovské moře.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic to Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
  • File:Malý Písečák, od jihovýchodu.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic to Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
  • File:Malý Písečák.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic to Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
  • File:Velký Písečák, ostrov.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic to Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
  • File:Velký Písečák.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the Czech Republic to Category:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic)
• Europe
  • File:HPIM3501.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Europe to Category:Reservoirs in Europe)
  • File:Lago grande Andarax.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Europe to Category:Reservoirs in Europe)
• France
  • Category:Lac Daumesnil (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
  • Category:Lac Inférieur du Bois de Boulogne (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
  • Category:Lac de Lavaud (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
  • Category:Lac de Pierre-Percée (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
  • Category:Lac de la Lande (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
  • Category:Lac de la Plaine (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
  • Category:Lac des Minimes (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
  • Category:Lac du Mas Chaban (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
  • Category:Lac du Mont-Cenis (removed Category:Artificial lakes in France; added Category:Reservoirs in France)
  • File:Artix lac 001.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in France to Category:Reservoirs in France)
  • File:Bussy-Saint-Georges église Notre-Dame du Val (1).jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in France to Category:Reservoirs in France)
  • File:Chamboux, 29 Juillet 2009.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in France to Category:Reservoirs in France)
  • File:Chateaucastanet.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in France to Category:Reservoirs in France)
  • File:VosgesSaulxuresSurMoselotteLac.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in France to Category:Reservoirs in France)
• Germany
  • Category:Eginger See (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Germany; added Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
  • Category:Northeimer Seenplatte (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Germany; added Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
  • Category:Tankumsee (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Germany; added Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
  • Category:Trinkwassertalsperre Frauenau (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Germany)
  • Category:Vilstalsee (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Germany)
  • Category:Werdersee (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Germany; added Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
  • File:Baggersee Rheininsel Ketsch.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
  • File:Brome Ohresee.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
  • File:Echinger Stausee.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
  • File:Epplesee.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
  • File:Erlauzwieseler See.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
  • File:Finsterrot Muehlsee 20101013.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
  • File:Finsterroter See Panorama 20101018.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
  • File:Ketscher Rheininsel Baggersee April.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
  • File:Luftaufnahme Therme Bad Wörishofen.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
  • File:PeitingGumpenMarch2011.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
  • File:Sea of Rohrhof.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
  • File:Stausee Obermaubach.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
  • File:Steinbruchsee.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Germany to Category:Reservoirs in Germany)
• Hungary
  • Category:Kőszeg-Lukácsháza víztározó (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Hungary; added Category:Reservoirs in Hungary)
  • Category:Lakes of Délegyháza (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Hungary; added Category:Reservoirs in Hungary)
  • Category:Lázbérci víztároló (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Hungary; added Category:Reservoirs in Hungary)
• Italy
  • Category:EUR Laghetto (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Italy; added Category:Reservoirs in Italy)
  • Category:Lago Casere (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Italy; added Category:Reservoirs in Italy)
  • Category:Lago Marcio (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Italy; added Category:Reservoirs in Italy)
  • File:Bozen 1 (216).JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Italy to Category:Reservoirs in Italy)
  • File:Lago alento.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Italy to Category:Reservoirs in Italy)
  • File:Medicina - Giardini Area Pasi.jpg (+Category:Artificial lakes of parks; ±Category:Reservoirs→Category:Reservoirs in Italy)
• Liberia
  • File:Bomi lake.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Liberia to Category:Reservoirs in Liberia)
• New Zealand
  • Category:Cosseys Dam (removed Category:Artificial lakes in New Zealand)
  • Category:Lake Benmore (removed Category:Artificial lakes in New Zealand; added Category:Reservoirs in New Zealand)
  • Category:Lake Ohakuri (removed Category:Artificial lakes in New Zealand; added Category:Reservoirs in New Zealand)
  • File:Harbour Bridge from Chelsea.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in New Zealand to Category:Reservoirs in New Zealand)
  • File:Mount Wellington behind Stonefields quarry redevelopment.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in New Zealand to Category:Reservoirs in New Zealand)
  • File:Stonefields Development Still Very Raw III.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in New Zealand to Category:Reservoirs in New Zealand)
• Portugal
  • File:Braga-Bom Jesus(lago).jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
  • File:Parque cidade póvoa lago.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
  • File:Parque da Cidade Lago.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
  • File:Parque da Paz em Almada (Lago).jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
  • File:Parque da Ponte - Lago.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
  • File:Parque do Bom Jesus (lago 2).JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
  • File:Parque do Bom Jesus (lago 3).JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
  • File:Parque do Bom Jesus (lago 6).JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
  • File:Parque do Bom Jesus (lago).JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
  • File:Pq d carlos i lago 1.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
  • File:Quinta Pedagogica Braga (3).jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
  • File:Quinta Pedagogica de Braga (12).jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in Portugal to Category:Reservoirs in Portugal)
• Serbia
  • Category:Jezero Kudreč (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Serbia; added Category:Reservoirs in Serbia)
  • Category:Zaovine Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes in Serbia; added Category:Reservoirs in Serbia)
• South Korea
  • File:Artificial Korean lake.JPG (+Category:Parks in Seoul; ±Category:Reservoirs→Category:Reservoirs in South Korea)
• Sweden
  • File:Hällekis quarry artificial lake.JPG (removed Category:Reservoirs; added Category:Reservoirs in Sweden)
• United Kingdom
  • Category:Virginia Water Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom; added Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)
  • File:Badger Dingle - Upper Pool 01.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)
  • File:Badger Dingle - Upper Pool 02.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)
  • File:Birds in artificial lake, England - scan01.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)
  • File:Fishing lake at Bidston Moss-by-Peter-Craine.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)
  • File:Lister Park Lake Bradford.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)
  • File:Marine Lake under threat-by-Mike-Pennington.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom)
  • File:Model boats and swans-by-Steve--F.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom) Moved to Category:Ponds in Merseyside.
  • File:Swans take over model boating lake-by-Raymond-Knapman.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom) Moved to Category:Ponds in Merseyside.
  • File:The model boat lake-by-Bob-Abell.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United Kingdom to Category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom) Moved to Category:Ponds in Merseyside.
• United States
  • Category:Berkeley Pit (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the United States; added Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
  • Category:Blue Hole (Big Pine Key) (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the United States; added Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
  • Category:Detroit Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the United States; added Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
  • Category:Lake Lagunita (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the United States; added Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
  • Category:Lake Tuendae (removed Category:Artificial lakes in the United States; added Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
  • File:Artificial Circular Lake.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United States to Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
  • File:CSUSlake.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United States to Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
  • File:Fort Belvoir DLA building.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United States to Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
  • File:Hagg lake near dam.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United States to Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
  • File:Harney Peak dam.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United States to Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
  • File:Lookout Point Lake from HWY 58.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes in the United States to Category:Reservoirs in the United States)
• Misc.
  • Category:Artificial lakes of parks (removed Category:Artificial lakes; added Category:Reservoirs)
  • Category:Gaasperplas (removed Category:Artificial lakes; added Category:Reservoirs)
  • Category:Kenyir Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes; added Category:Reservoirs)
  • Category:Man-made lakes (removed Category:Artificial lakes; added Category:Reservoirs)
  • Category:Polyfytos lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes; added Category:Reservoirs)
  • Category:Sukhna Lake (removed Category:Artificial lakes; added Category:Reservoirs)
  • Category:Zoetermeerse Plas (removed Category:Artificial lakes; added Category:Reservoirs)
  • File:Artificial Korean lake.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
  • File:Artificial lake kazanlak.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
  • File:Bütgenbach Lake drained.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
  • File:El Hajeb Lac (Maroc).JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
  • File:Hällekis quarry artificial lake.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
  • File:Karnak44.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
  • File:Lago de San José.JPG (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
  • File:Laguna Parque O'Higgins.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
  • File:Malibou Dam.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
  • File:Markiezaatsmeer.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)
  • File:Medicina - Giardini Area Pasi.jpg (Moving from Category:Artificial lakes to Category:Reservoirs)

Badzil (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick look at the UK ones: File:The model boat lake-by-Bob-Abell.jpg, File:Birds in artificial lake, England - scan01.jpg, File:Badger Dingle - Upper Pool 01.jpg Reservoirs? No. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The first one is definitely a pond and not a lake (moved). The second one has a dam according to the municipality of St.Helens. The third one too, according to File:Badger Dingle - cascade 01.jpg. Badzil (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So what's your point? An artificial lake is created by some artificial means: adding pond liners or else damming. Just having been caused by a dam doesn't make them reservoirs either.

A reservoir has to be a reserve, some storage of water for some future purpose. This could be water power or drinking water, but there has to be some sort of outfall channel with a purpose attached to it. "Lakes for the sake of just being lakes" don't become reservoirs. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm no native English speaker but your description is not in line with the article on reservoirs of the anglophone Wikipedia. See en:Reservoir#Recreation. A recreational purpose is apparently enough of a purpose to make an artificial lake a reservoir. If I'm wrong, then please correct the article. Also the en:WP article on lakes states:

Artificial lake: A lake created by flooding land behind a dam, called an impoundment or reservoir, by deliberate human excavation, or by the flooding of an excavation incident to a mineral-extraction operation such as an open pit mine or quarry. Some of the world's largest lakes are reservoirs like Hirakud Dam in India.

This raises the question of the difference between a reservoir and an artificial lake. Everything seems to show that there is no difference, and if there is, it is not clear enough for users from many linguistic backgrounds to choose the right category. Badzil (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WP is not WP:RS. Yes, most artificial lakes are reservoirs, because they're expensive things to build and so must have been justified for some serious economic purpose. This is no demonstration that all of them are reservoirs. Some are built purely for landscaping purposes, or to make a body of water for recreation. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. You seem to have a clear idea of what is a reservoir and what is an artificial lake, but it is still unclear to me and other contributors. Would you care to write a description on Category:Artificial lakes and Category:Reservoirs to help people to choose the right category? Badzil (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of the artificial lakes I know are made because one needed to excavate material for building long highways or the clay/sand for making bricks, while the resulting lake is nowadays a nature reserve. Others will soon be excavated soon to form some sort of floodplain to cope with the ever increasing problem of floods and high discharge rates of rivers. There too, they will form some sort of lake in a new nature reserve. Many old open mines and quarries have been transformed to lakes too. --Foroa (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have Category:Artifical water bodies or Category:Man-made water bodies, and then have subcategories under that. A water body could be added to whichever categories matched its primary uses. There are different kinds of artificial water bodies. A "reservoir", in the broadest definition, can be a container for anything. But in practical usage, in my opinion, "reservoir" implies a water reserve that will later flow for some other purpose: hydroelectric, mill power, downstream river water, drinking, etc. (I am from the U.S. Midwest; people in other places may have different opinions of what "reservoir" implies.) There are many kinds of artificial water bodies that could technically be called a "reservoir", depending on context, but usually are described more specifically:

1. Many artificial lakes and ponds are created primarily for recreation and serve little other use.
2. Man-made detention basins or retention basins, which I think are also called "catchments", "catch basins", or "detention pools", are portions of residental or commercial areas where surface runoff terminates so that it doesn't flood into adjacent land. Some of these are used for recreation; but more often they are simply decorated or put in a low-visibility location.
3. Flooded basins in abandoned surface mines. Sometimes they drain and sometimes they don't; their water is usually polluted. (See, for example, Category:Strip mining effects in Monterey, Illinois in May 1973, a recently uploaded set of photos from the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration.)
4. Artificial spa structures and outdoor baths.
5. Swimming pools.
6. Fish hatchery tanks/ponds and other kinds of artificial fish ponds. (Category:Fish ponds)
7. All kinds of Category:Garden ponds including Category:Ornamental ponds.
8. Cooling ponds, especially common at electric power plants. Some of these cooling ponds are openly connected to the natural water system as well.

Some of these water bodies may have functions that cross over: for example, the famous Lake Mead on the Arizona-Nevada border in the U.S. was created by Hoover Dam; it would probably go in both Category:Artificial lakes and Category:Reservoirs, as it has had both recreational and water management purposes from the beginning. --Closeapple (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:River_locks_in_the_Netherlands

Because there are a lot of locks in a parallel canal for the river, like the Meuse, the Lek, The Rhine. Creating a separate category for river locks generates separate categories for locks in other countries and it is almost impossible to see we are talking about rivers or canals. It makes categorising very, very difficult. Stunteltje (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole category-section is overall a mess regarding locks in the Netherlands or maybe even worldwide. It should be renamed to something like "Locks in waterways (in the Netherlands)", because especially in the Netherlands, with it's large watersections, the Lek is for example not a canal but a river. Canals are manmade waterways, rivers are created by nature. To add to the confusion: some rivers got canalized in the Netherlands (e.g. section of the Rhine)...
By renaming it to waterways, this problem can be overcome. Regards Sonty (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Can solve the problem indeed. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Creating a separate category for river locks generates separate categories for locks in other countries"

No, it doesn't. A meaningless consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. If this category is useful for the Netherlands, then create it. If it is not useful for other countries, then don't create those. MediaWiki categorization is a tree, not a grid. We don't need to populate orthogonal cross-products of every possible combination, if there is no usefulness to some of those possible combinations. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. One has to find out if a lock is in a river or a canal. In the Netherlands in most rivers the locks are in parallel canals. The rivers have weirs. --Stunteltje (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Photos_of_topless_females_featuring_armpits

Silly category name "topless females featuring armpits". Do females exist on earth without armpits? Is such a category of interest on Commons or follows it a private fetishism of a user here? 80.187.97.160 22:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Fits in with the broader scheme of categorizing topless and nude photos, so one doesn't get into a NSFW situation when looking at Category:Female armpits. Evrik (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment no strong opinion one way or another on this one; some users seem to find such categories useful. I'd just encourage Evrick when creating such categories to go ahead and fill out the category tree. I took care of the obvious "Photos of females featuring armpits" for you. Infrogmation (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Since is the category itself in discussion and not its name i renamed it like the others photographs category . The discussion now is in Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/11/Category:Photographs of topless females featuring armpits.

I Hope was not too bold--Pierpao.lo (listening) 03:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Rakuten_Japan_Open_Tennis_Championships

Nominated on behalf of User:Flickrworker. Reason given was "sponsored name which changes every time a new sponsor is known (Japan Open Tennis Championships)" FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikimedia_officer_templates

Should be deleted once it is empty. "Wikimedia officer" is a completely misleading term which should not be used. The handful of actual WMF officers don't need a template category. Rd232 (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:St._Thomas_Aquinas,_Zanesville,_Ohio

Category:St._Aloysius,_Shandon,_Ohio
Category:St._Francis_de_Sales,_Cincinnati,_Ohio

We only have one image in each of these church categories, and none of them are so impressive that new images are likely to be uploaded, so these categories are superfluous. As well, the names are problematic: church categories always have "Church" or "Chapel" or "Cathedral" or whatever other name, but these categories have just the patron saint and the city. If you didn't know better, you might think from the names alone that they were categories for saints from these places. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The subcategories were created to make for easier browsing in the category "Churches in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati". The likelihood of more photos being uploaded is entirely speculative. Catholic church interiors are often decorated to correspond with the Catholic conception of heaven: with lots of pretty stuff. -Nheyob

We create categories when images are present: we don't create them in hopes that people will add more images later. Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If that's the policy, then that's the policy. -Nheyob

No reason to delete. Makes lists as Category:Churches in Diocese of Columbus easier to read, sort and manage which is not possible with bunches of pictures. --Foroa (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, a category for a single image is inappropriate. Perhaps you don't do things that way, but the rest of us do. Nyttend (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You are inventing new rules. I can show you hundreds of single image categories, for example in the ships family. Moreover, categories always grow, such as already the last one in your list. --Foroa (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Bulwary_Inflanckie_in_Kraków

Bulwar Inflancki in Kraków - the correct name (singular in Polish instead of plural) RaNo (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:St._Charles_Senior_Living_Community,_Carthagena,_Ohio

Move to Category:St. Charles Seminary (Carthagena, Ohio). Categories for historic sites in the area (of which there are many) generally follow the National Register of Historic Places names for the properties, and this place is listed under the name of the seminary, not the elder home. Moreover, such categories have disambiguation in parentheses, not just with commas. Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Nude_or_partially_nude_women

The category "Nude or partially nude women" may have its qualification for Wikimedia but all subcats with the "Nude or partially nude women in ..." or "Nude or partially nude women doing this and that" or "Nude or partially nude women with green hair" are rather silly. In my view they do not follow the self-chosen educational demand of Wikimedia Commons. I recommend somebody to check this fact critically according to the project scope 80.187.97.88 10:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment If there's at least one argument to keep those cats, it would be the folowing one : it's a logic of category tree, which prevents over-population of the main cat and allow everyone to find pictures through different paths. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Some people seem to find such categories useful judging by how much effort is put into creating them. The "nude or partially nude" seems to be as an umbrella category for both nude people and non-nude people in partial clothing that some cultures consider "improper" such as toplessness. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment If I understand correctly, the subcategories are not to categorize “nude or partially nude women” by “green hair” etc, but to prevent those who came to the “green hair” category for “green hair” from suddenly seeing lots of “nude or partially nude women” (and potentially nominating them for deletion because of that). This category itself is then for what TwoWings described, and to find examples of the categories in it, when you need to create one. --AVRS (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Hôtel_de_Soyecourt_(Paris_7th)

the correct category is: Category:Hôtel de SoyecourtReinhardhauke (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the two categories should exist. There are two "Hôtel de Soyecourt" in Paris :

• PA00088741, in 7th district of Paris, 51 rue de l'université
• PA00085840, in 1st district of Paris, 3 place des Victoires. This is the one described in the already existing cat Category:Hôtel_de_Soyecourt. On mérimée (database of french ministry of culture describing french historical places) it is called "former Hôtel de Soyecourt".

Hope this helps. Symac (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'am agree with Symac, there are two hotels de Soyencourt in Paris. I added the category Category:Hôtel de Soyecourt (Pozzo di Borgo) for distinguish the second one in the 7th district of Paris. All files are attached now in the new category, so we can delete this empty one Category:Hôtel de Soyecourt (Paris 7th). --Moonik (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Iberá_marshes

I suggest renaming the category (i) according to the original Spanish name Esteros del Iberá or (ii) according to the en.wikipedia article Iberá Wetlands. Leyo 18:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• supporting proposal (i) → «« Man77 »» ^[de]·[bar] 19:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:New York City from 2000 to 2004

Empty category. Remainder of category scheme from early days of Commons, before creation and general implementation of decade and year categories for states and major cities. All media that had been in cat moved to more specific year cats. --Infrogmation (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete Jim.henderson (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

 Comment I think all of the "by period" category should be deleted, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/03/New York City by period. --rimshot^talk 17:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:New York City from 1940 to 1979

Empty category. Remainder of category scheme from early days of Commons, before creation and general implementation of decade and year categories for states and major cities. Infrogmation (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

--Infrogmation (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

J 1982 (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)  Support deletion. The same with these:

• Category:Sweden 1050-1389
• Category:Sweden 1521-1654
• Category:Sweden 1611-1718
• Category:Sweden 1719-1772
• Category:Sweden 1772-1809
• Category:Sweden 1808-1914
• Category:Sweden 1914-1945
• Category:Sweden 1945-1989

• Support deletion for NYC groups of decades. No opinion on Sweden historical eras. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I think all of the "NYC by period" categories should be deleted, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/03/New York City by period. It might be a good idea to open a separate discussion the for Sweden categories. --rimshot^talk 17:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Perry_Township,_Ohio

See en:Perry Township, Ohio — there are twenty-six Perry Townships in Ohio, so the proper name of this category is "Perry Township, Logan County, Ohio". However, there's just one image in it, and we're not likely to get many more, so this should simply be deleted as being too specific. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment Not likely to get more? That's what we thought here in England, then the Geograph project's images were uploaded, and we're suddenly struggling with about 300 images for even the smallest civil parish (that's the equivalent of your townships!). Some of the more picturesque ones have well over a thousand images! You wouldn't believe there are so many people out there taking photographs of nondescript fields, garden gates, road signs, electricity poles, bus stops..... 2.7 million images in total, and most of them hit the system over a period of about three months! And they're still arriving! Anyway, would suggest you keep the category and move as suggested. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I grew up in this area, and I can tell you reliably that there are no other Commons photographers in the area. Your argument is essentially saying that nothing should be deleted for lack of photographs, which is badly at variance with how Commons works. Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No reason to delete. Most categories start small, Commons is growing with millions of images per year. --Foroa (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to create a category for every township in Ohio? Every Ohio township is equal, so your argument means that we should have thirteen hundred Ohio township categories. Perhaps this would make sense where you two live, where the population density is greater, but the rural United States is different. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Car's_insurance

Not standard English usage: should either be "car insurance" or "automobile insurance". Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

you can change the name if you want. --Chatsam (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Better be generic, such as Insurances of home, vehicles, fire, bicycle, legs of cyclists/models in Italy, breasts of vocalists in the United States, ships on the Black Sea, voices of singers in England, ... --Foroa (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Spadina Avenue, Category:Spadina Avenue, Toronto, Category:Spadina Road, Category:Spadina Road, Toronto

Spadina Avenue and Spadina Road are two separate roadways. We have a lot of images of Spadina Avenue, and a smaller number of Spadina Road. I thought the two separate roadways merited two separate categories. The roadways are separate historically and numerically, although they are colinear. I started a category for Spadina Road. Recently I discovered it had been deleted. I discovered the images that images I thought belonged in the category for Spadina Road had been placed in a category for Spadina Avenue. Category:Spadina Road was deleted because it was an "empty, implausible redirect", -- Geo Swan (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, I suspect there are no other Spadina Roads or Spadina Avenues, anywhere but Toronto -- so the qualifier "Toronto" is unnecessary. see below Geo Swan (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the reason for those deletions has been misconstrued. Of course Spadina Avenue and Spadina Road are two different streets. That is a well-known fact among most Torontonians, and I am also not aware of anyone here suggesting otherwise. Category:Spadina Road, Toronto was deleted because it was empty. That's the only reason it was deleted. If there are images that were supposed to be there, they hadn't been there for sometime. Empty categories are deleted (and always without prejudice to their recreation if images pertaining to that subject are later uploaded or later subcategorized). Category:Spadina Road was subsequently deleted because it was a redirect to a deleted category (thus the auto-generated phrase 'empty, implausible redirect') -- Foroa's deletion was merely a clean-up exercise. If you have images of Spadina Road, by all means recreate the category. I'm pretty sure no one has an issue with that.

As for qualifiers, disambiguation on Commons is not always about uniqueness or primary status of the topic. In that respect, usage of disambiguation here is completely different than on Wikipedia. On the Commons, we strive to maintain consistent naming conventions for all subcategories. Consistent category naming ensures helps ensure that images are properly categorized. When one active editor can typically be categorizing dozens of images at any one time, and hundreds (or more) in a week, consistency in category naming is more important than recognizing a subject's uniqueness. In this case, all Toronto street categories are disambiguated so that editors who use those categories know precisely what the category name is, and don't have to guess ("Is Yonge Street unique? What about Wellington Street? Does Elizabeth street need a qualifier?" etc. etc.)--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I did learn something, Geo Swan, from your note on my talk page. I had no idea Spadina Road started at Bloor. I always thought it started at Dupont. Interesting. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I also thought it started north of the escarpment, but when I checked google maps today I too was surprised when I found it started at Bloor. I added some new (to us) city of Toronto images to Category:Spadina Road, Toronto, and restored some former images -- so it has about ten images.

I didn't simply recreate the category, as that might complicate the restoration of the previous revision history. Geo Swan (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Done! Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Travelers_Rest_Montana

Not the normal form of disambiguation: this should be "Traveler's Rest (Lolo, Montana)". Note the absence of the apostrophe in the current name. The name is the only issue; I'm not looking to have this category deleted or merged with another one. Nyttend (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Akihabara

Is the entire neighborhood a "Consumer electronics retailer"? If not that category should be moved to relevant sub cats. Kramer Associates (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think, Shop items need not in category of Akihabara. thanks,--Aimaimyi (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Athletes

What is the difference between Category:Athletes and Category:Sportspeople? If there is a significant difference, I think it should be clearly articulated on the category pages; if there is not, perhaps a merge would be appropriate. There are many child categories this would apply to as well. --Pete F (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"Athletes" would be a subset of "Sportspeople". Sportspeople who are not athletes include coaches, team owners, referees, etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I see that's how it's handled in English Wikipedia. And it makes sense. I think if that's the reasoning here, it's important to have some text to that effect on the relevant category pages, so that there is some hope that sub-cats like Category:Sportspeople from the United States etc. get handled in a consistent manner. I will work on that, and watch this discussion in case any other important points emerge. -Pete F (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Renaming to Category:Competitors in athletics might be an idea. That's what they did at en:Category:Athletes. Multichill (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. But actually, the en-wp category you point to is specifically for competitors in certain "track & field" sports -- apparently there are two meanings for "athletics," which I never knew. So if we're going to make a similar distinction here, it would probably be better to use Category:Sports competitors or similar. -Pete F (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If we were to decide that renaming Category:Athletes to Category:Sports competitors as described above (and paralleling English Wikipedia), is there a technical means to implement this? A bot or toolserver tool perhaps? -Pete F (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Older Requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

• Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/10
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/08
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/06
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/05
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/04
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/03
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/02
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/01
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2010
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/12
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/11
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/09
• Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/07
• Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/06
• Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/05