Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2013/04
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive April 2013
rename Praga Alfa to Praga Alfa RomanM82 (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Done --moogsi (blah) 22:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
rename to Category:Khatyn. I am quite sure it is a typo. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's not. The Slavonic "soft sign" is marked as '. Khatyn' is originally spelled Хатынь. See here for transcription matters.
- Best regards
- --C.G. (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Not done: Every system for Romanization of Belarusian transcribes Ь in a similar way. Except National 2007, which would render Х as "Ch" anyway (Chatyń) –moogsi (blah) 14:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Replaced by category:Fróði Benjaminsen. Froztbyte (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted because it had a typo. There is a convenience redirect Category:Fródi Benjaminsen for those who cannot type ð –moogsi (blah) 13:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Hallur Hansson. Froztbyte (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Isn't spelt with á's anywhere, not even on fo.wiki –moogsi (blah) 14:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
trivial overcategorization, we have Category:Molten cheese. i added this phrase to the image description, if someone really needs to find an image showing "hanging cheese threads" (not a common phrase) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete: agree –moogsi (blah) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)- Delete: I just moved the only image in the category to melted cheese so now it's empty.—Kri (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: odd name, too specific –moogsi (blah) 15:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
delete, no such images (i accidentally put an image in that doesnt fit the category, then removed it) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. —howcheng {chat} 15:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
unnecessary layer between Category:Oscypek and all the parent cats Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: dupe of Category:Oscypek –moogsi (blah) 07:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The Category is empty יעל י (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: –moogsi (blah) 21:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
(Mistake (and empty יעל י (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: you can tag a page with {{Speedy}} (include the reason) if you make a mistake –moogsi (blah) 21:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- This _misspelled_ category should be deleted; it's empty because I already moved all former containing files to the new proper named category:
• Jaybear • ...disc. • 21:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Speedily Deleted. For such obvious cases you can just use {{Badname}}, no need to start a category discussion. --rimshottalk 21:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete: Its contents (all redirects) were moved to Category:Icons for railway descriptions/Exceptional permanent redirects/deWikivoyage, which is more aptly, widely named. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Done good job! a×pdeHello! 07:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
We do not have Category:Farmhouses by municipality until now. Shall we really open this bag? Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Mein Englisch ist dazu nicht gut genug, aber es werden in den nächsten Tagen oder Wochen vom User:Ewaldgabardi für ca. 50 verschiedene Höfe im Ennstal Fotos (bis zu 10 pro Hof) hochgeladen, so dass doch eine Kategorisierung in die einzelnen Orte dazu erfolgen sollte. --K@rl (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- PS: Natürlich jeweils mehrere Höfe pro Gemeinde --K@rl (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Karl, reicht nicht eine Gebäudekat für die Gebäude einer Gemeinde (ich mein für Donnersbach? - Nicht für Wien natürlich.)? Das gibt es in vielen Gemeinden (Category:Buildings in Steyr, Category:Buildings in Innsbruck, Category:Buildings in Sankt Gilgen, Category:Buildings in Sankt Thomas am Blasenstein (Bilderlose Traurigkeit)), aber farmhouses-Unterkategorien in der Gebäude-Kat sind mir noch nicht untergekommen. Die dahinterstehende Frage ist doch, wenn du so etwas beginnst, bist du bereit das für alle Bauernhöfe zumindest in AT durchzuziehen? Oder bohrst du hier ein tiefes Loch und hoffst, dass jemand anderer das macht?
- Hi Karl, I think a category for all buildings of a municipality is enough (Donnersbach, not Vienna of course). This already exists in many municipalities (Category:Buildings in Steyr, Category:Buildings in Innsbruck, Category:Buildings in Sankt Gilgen, Category:Buildings in Sankt Thomas am Blasenstein (sad emptyness)). regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ergänzung: Wir haben aktuell rund 60 Objektkategorien, 10 Bundeslandkategorien (9 Bundesländer + Donnersbach) und insgesamt über 1500 Bilder zu Bauernhöfen bei rund 2000 Gemeinden in Österreich. d.H. weniger als einen Bauernhof pro Gemeinde
- May I add real figures. Currently we have about 60 categories for single objects (=farmhouses), 10 categories for federal states and communities (9 federal states & Donnersbach) and more than 1500 images of farmhouses spread over more than two thousand municipalities in Austria. Which is less than one image of a farmhouse per municipality. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hallo Herzi Pinki, ich habe kein Problem, diese Höfe pro Gemeinde in eine Kategorie zusammenzulegen, aber ich weiß nicht ob es sinnvoll ist, wenn ich pro Hof Minimum 10 Fotos bekomme, die Kategorie also pro Gemeinde dann 40 bis 50 Fotos verschiedener Hofe habe, siehe Category:Schloapfer. Vielleicht noch eines dazu. Nachdem diese Höfe nicht in Wikipedia logischerweise aber im Ennstalwiki jeweils Einzelartikel haben, ist natürlich für dort die Einbindung der Kat pro Hof von großen Nutzen. Ich begann nur rechtzeitig mit der Aufteilung wenn Ewald das mit dem Commonist aufeinmal kategorisiert, als im Nachhinein jedes Foto einzeln zu bearbeiten, das brauche ich dir ja nicht sagen :-). K@rl (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Karl, ich habe die Kategorie Category:Farmhouses in Donnersbach zur Disposition gestellt und nicht die Kategorie Category:Schloapfer, die als Objektkategorie mit dieser Anzahl Bilder immer sinnvoll ist, keine Frage. Es geht also hier nicht um die Einzelartikel zu Höfen (btw. was hat das Ennstalwiki mit Commons zu tun?) sondern maximal um Listenartikel zu den Bauernhöfen einer Gemeinde. Und, Karl, das oben war keine rhetorische Frage, bist du bereit das für alle Bauernhöfe zumindest in AT durchzuziehen? lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hallo Herzi Pinki, ich weiß schon dass du Farmhouses in Donnersbach zur Disk. gestellt hast. Ich habe mich eigentlich nur an das Schema Category:Farmhouses in Bavaria by municipality gehalten. Wenn du die einzelnen Bauernhöfe lieber in Buildings in Donnersbach drin haben willst, habe ich auch kein Problem. Warum Ennstalwiki? nachdem Commons:Weiterverwendung habe ich Salzburg und Ennstal angesprochen, die einerseits jetzt Fotos von COmmons verwenden können und die Fotografen andererseits bei uns die Fotos raufladen. Ewald ist einer vom Ennstal-Wiki und hat in nur 2 Tagen etwa 1000 in voller Größe uploaded :-) --K@rl (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Karl, ich habe die Kategorie Category:Farmhouses in Donnersbach zur Disposition gestellt und nicht die Kategorie Category:Schloapfer, die als Objektkategorie mit dieser Anzahl Bilder immer sinnvoll ist, keine Frage. Es geht also hier nicht um die Einzelartikel zu Höfen (btw. was hat das Ennstalwiki mit Commons zu tun?) sondern maximal um Listenartikel zu den Bauernhöfen einer Gemeinde. Und, Karl, das oben war keine rhetorische Frage, bist du bereit das für alle Bauernhöfe zumindest in AT durchzuziehen? lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
withdrawn: in the meantime during open discussion a lot more similar categories have been created and some old images have been re-categorized to the by municipality category. Thus it does not make sense to question this category further. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Please delete - incorrect capitalisation, all media now moved to El Tejar Simon Burchell (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Done –moogsi (blah) 20:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Please delete. Misspelt placename (Chiguán). New cat already created and photo moved. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Done - please use {{Bad name}}, no discussion is needed, thanks –moogsi (blah) 20:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Named with misprint: X-Series instead of X-series. Maksim Sidorov 09:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Fujifilm X-series cameras. --rimshottalk 22:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
wrong name, artist is Imfeld, see http://www.european-art.net/eingang_besucher/index.cfm?token_lastname=Imfeld&token_firstname=Hugo Martin Sg. (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
moved –moogsi (blah) 23:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
delete pls Rudko (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Done doesn't need discussion: use {{Speedy}} if you make a mistake. Thanks –moogsi (blah) 00:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
empty category, could not find any files related to this subject Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom, empty, impossible to expand. jonkerz ♠talk 10:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, empty, no clear potential for growth. --rimshottalk 22:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
merge contents to Category:Grinders, which lists this as the category for Cannabis Grinders, whatever that is Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done recategorized contents. Had completely lost its original pupose to the point of not having any cannabis mills in it :) –moogsi (blah) 00:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- great job.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I have deleted the old one. Thanks for your support. --High Contrast (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Grinders. --rimshottalk 13:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
correct name is Category:Logos of coffee companies Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Logos of coffee companies. --rimshottalk 06:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Reasons for discussion request: To be deleted as duplicate of the correct category "Abingdon, Oxfordshire". All content is already moved. --Karl432 (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete, per above. Nightscream (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Abingdon, Oxfordshire, even though I would have preferred to keep a redirect. --rimshottalk 06:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Either Boys sleeping should be renamed Sleeping boys or this category of Sleeping men should be renamed Men Sleeping Mjrmtg (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep Males are generally divided into boys and men (in some cases also adolescent men). Categories for sleeping boys and sleeping men make sense to me in order to distinguish thousands of (potential) file assignments to those categories. --Mattes (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - you didn't read my initial statement. This category is Sleeping men, the category for boys is called "Boys sleeeping". The first category has the verb first, the second has the verb last. That's all, I just think they should be consistent. --Mjrmtg (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Support (Thought it's a CfD... I should concentrate more) --Mattes (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is a CfD, the D is for discussion ;) --rimshottalk 18:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - you didn't read my initial statement. This category is Sleeping men, the category for boys is called "Boys sleeeping". The first category has the verb first, the second has the verb last. That's all, I just think they should be consistent. --Mjrmtg (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at Category:Sleeping people, Category:Sleeping women, Category:Sleeping girls, Category:Sleeping babies, I would suggest Category:Sleeping boys. --rimshottalk 18:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking the other categories up, if noone opposes in a couple days then I'll create Category:Sleeping boys and move everything over from Category:Boys sleeping. --Mjrmtg (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Category:Boys sleeping moved to Category:Sleeping boys. --rimshottalk 06:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Empty category. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty category. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Empty category, overspecification of category. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty category. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Empty category, overspecification of other categories. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty category. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Empty category, overspecification of other categories. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty category. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This is, in my opinion, an undisguised magnet for copyvios. "Popeye the Sailor" and related characters are copyrighted and trademarked, their ownership lying with King Features Syndicate. SethAllen623 (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Useful categories shouldn't get deleted just because people can upload copyvios into them. Trademarks are irrelevant to Commons. The basic Olive Oyl was a character in Thimble Theatre prior to 1923, and thus is out of copyright. As we've established with Bugs Bunny, there's valuable parts of a PD cartoon that's not derivative of the underlying characters, like title shots.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you that trademarks are irrelevant to Commons, and that the site has never cared about them. I also agree that the character of Olive Oyl is out of copyright for being a character in Thimble Theatre prior to 1923, but of course, Popeye, Bluto, Wimpy, and the others can definitely be treated as copyrighted. I see your point, but I was only nominating this category for discussion, not deletion. BUT -- even when those other characters go into the public domain as Olive Oyl has, that will not prevent KFS from protecting later work featuring the characters, or non-trivial changes to the original characters (i.e. redesigned versions). --Seth Allen (discussion/contributions, Thursday, April 11, 2013, 20:06 U.T.C.
- P.S. This category will definitely need to be filled with more law-respecting files in order for this discussion to be advanced.
- This is not a DR. If you want those files deleted, you'll need to file a DR on them. BUT -- there are new, copyrighted, versions of the Mona Lisa. That does not mean anything about the Mona Lisa category, just that we can't upload anything we want without thinking about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Not only are there PD media related to Popeye (which will increase in the not-too-distant future), I quite like copyvio-magnets. They make copyvios easier to find, as people will upload them whether the category is there or not –moogsi (blah) 02:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept. Images portraying the copyrighted character design of Popeye have been eliminated. -- SethAllen623 (talk) 16:30, Friday, April 27, 2012 (UTC)
If the files in this category are about to be deleted, then I suspect that the category itself must be deleted as well, as it will be empty. SethAllen623 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that the film wasn't renewed. File:Spirit 43 - Title card - títol.JPG isn't a derivative work of any copyrighted artwork as far as I can tell, so that image can be kept although the rest has to be deleted. I'm not sure if File:Spirit 43 - Scrooge - Oncle Picsou - Garrepa.JPG counts as a derivative work of Donald Duck. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept, not empty. If the files do indeed get deleted, use {{speedydelete|empty}}, no discussion needed. --rimshottalk 21:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This category should be deleted because it is empty. SethAllen623 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept. It has a populated subcategory. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
underpopulated, not a major candidate for expansion, file is well categorized. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have been educated on the acceptability of very small categories like this, and names of people. i withdraw this nomination on the basis of policy allowing such small categories, like company brands. live and learn.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept, request retracted and the category contains two files now. --rimshottalk 21:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:Chocolate shops, this is simply french term for shop, and is not just french shops Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- A chocolaterie is an (artisanal) place where they make chocolate in the first place and sell chocolates. A chocolate shop sells only. No reason to merge. --Foroa (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: Agree with Foroa. A Chocolaterie is a Chocolate shop, but a Chocolate shop is not usually a Chocolaterie. Category:Chocolaterie should remain a subcategory of Category:Chocolate shops and of Category:Manufacture of chocolate, otherwise the link with manufacture is lost. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment you're probably correct. if no one else more knowledgeable than i chimes in as i do, i say keep. I am used to having many "chocolate shops" in the San Francisco Bay Area which are essentially chocolateries, such as sharfenberger, and not as many non-production chocolate shops (usually we have instead candy shops or general food stores). I can see how its a useful distinction. I think creating a category and article on the english wp for this term would be useful (it exists on the french wp).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept Per Commons:Language policy and Commons:Naming categories, we defer to the encyclopedic name on English Wikipedia, which in this case is at Chocolaterie (and thanks to the original nominator Mercurywoodrose (talk · contribs) for having started the stub on English Wikipedia!) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Hrušaǔka (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Akademija navuk (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Barysaŭski trakt (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Instytut kuĺtury (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Michalova (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Maskoŭskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kastryčnickaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Park Čaliuskincaŭ (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Plošča Pieramohi (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Plošča Jakuba Kolasa (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Plošča Lienina Kolasa (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Uručča (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Uschod (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Aŭtazavodskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Frunzienskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kamiennaja Horka (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kuncaŭščyna (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Kupalaŭskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Mahilioŭskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Maladziožnaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Niamiha (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Partyzanskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Pieršamajskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Pralietarskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Puškinskaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Spartyŭnaja (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect transliteration of the name in the Belarusian. Should be Category:Traktarny zavod (Minsk Metro station) (Minsk metro scheme). --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Closed, duplicate of Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/05/Category:Minsk metro. --rimshottalk 22:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Why is this category a subcat of "Category:Finmeccanica" and "Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Italy" ??? FAEP (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Its a mistake. Eurocopter never had an Italian owner or partner. Just delete it. --maxxl2 - talk 10:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Typically user:Pava. --Foroa (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- sorry I was wrong, you're right --Pava (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Typically user:Pava. --Foroa (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Cleaned up as per discussion. --rimshottalk 21:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Suggest category be renamed Common (Musician) as a lot of other photos get thrown in the Common category that aren't about the musician Mjrmtg (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support move to Category:Common (entertainer). --Foroa (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguated. --rimshottalk 21:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Correct spelling is Melitta coffeemakers Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please add a command at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, use {{Move}}, or move the category yourself. See Commons:Rename a category. Thanks –moogsi (blah) 05:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- thanks, i didnt know i had those options.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Melitta coffeemakers. --rimshottalk 21:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
is it really useful to separate out the women? Vera (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why not? We do it with every other geographic location. Nightscream (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep unless you also want to delete all of Category:Women by country. --rimshottalk 06:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept, no follow-up to objections. --rimshottalk 21:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
"Christian sculptures" for this category and its subcats seems of more natual. A sculpture or a statue of something depicts that thing –moogsi (blah) 13:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Exists since 8 years without a problem, has hundreds if not 2000 subcats with the same syntax. Needs clearer insight about the naming of current and future subcats for all the various branches of Christianity: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Restorationists branches. --Foroa (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe you misunderstand why I think this is a bad name. 2000 is pushing it somewhat. These are the categories that have awkward ESL names:
- That's it. When a work of art is "of" something, that thing always what the art depicts. If you look at the subcats they are all statues of Jesus or of bishops etc. They already make sense. You can't have a statue of an abstract concept (unless it is abstract itself, or a personification). As this is not a wide-ranging change, there is no provision for the future except that I would probably avoid "sculptures of Catholicism" or "statues of Seventh-day Adventism" –moogsi (blah) 18:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- What means an ESL name ? There are indeed much less involved cats that I thought, but:
- There are plenty of Category:Sculptures by subject where the subject is the last term.
- Christian statues in China and Singapore sounds even more wrong, are they baptised ?
- I'm still convinced that the naming has to leave place for the twenty or so variants on Christianity. --Foroa (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- What means an ESL name ? There are indeed much less involved cats that I thought, but:
- That's it. When a work of art is "of" something, that thing always what the art depicts. If you look at the subcats they are all statues of Jesus or of bishops etc. They already make sense. You can't have a statue of an abstract concept (unless it is abstract itself, or a personification). As this is not a wide-ranging change, there is no provision for the future except that I would probably avoid "sculptures of Catholicism" or "statues of Seventh-day Adventism" –moogsi (blah) 18:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you object to the word "Christian" to describe a statue, please look at the definition of the adjective Christian. No of course they are not baptised, which is why it's more understandable than would be "Statues of Christianity in China" :)
- Christianity is an abstract concept; compare the more obvious ones like e.g., Category:Emotions in art. Why are there no "sculptures of boredom" or "paintings of frustration" like the other "in art" categories? They are not tangible subjects, neither is Christianity. To use an abstract concept in this way is not idiomatic in English.
- "Catholic art" is a category we should probably have, and of course we would have "Catholic statues" or whatever. Of course "Catholicism in art" is fine, "Catholicism in sculpture" is ok, even though it sounds like a module of a degree which nobody chooses. "Catholicism in statues"? "Catholicism in reliefs"? "Statues of Catholicism"? Oh you mean Catholic statues. Right.
- It's very rude of me, I know, but what I mean by ESL is usage which appears to be gramatically, semantically, syntactically, etc. correct, but doesn't make sense because it isn't idiomatic. And this is another reason why it sucks that the category tree is still just in English on an international project –moogsi (blah) 16:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
--- Moved to Category:Christian sculptures. --rimshottalk 07:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Somewhat ambiguous name. This actually seems to mean Category:Christian monuments. –moogsi (blah) 13:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Christian monuments.--rimshottalk 07:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
this should be merged with Category:People by occupation. having a flat category is no longer done here, per Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Categories by alphabet (actually, on Wikipedia, this would be an administrative category for a WikiProject or Task Force). some of these occuations are still not in the other category. very confusing, must be resolved. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Given that there is Category talk:People by occupation by alphabet, with an already running session of stable-standing pleas to dismantle that category, I fail to see why the need to establish an additional, new page to scatter apart the very same topic. Orrlingtalk 12:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Because, in theory at least, creating a CFD exposes it to a larger group of editors, not just ones who see the talk page, or the previous broader CFD. however, i am learning that unlike the english wikipedia, CFD's here just go off into limbo, with no resolution. I hadnt noticed the talk page, and i will place my above comment there as well.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted after discussion on talk page. --rimshottalk 23:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I cannot think of any potential use, since the only user of this tram type is currently the Vienna tram operator (which has its own subcategory), so there will not any time soon be any files categorized here directly darkweasel94 Diskussion/talk/diskuto 20:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- P.S.: The related types Category:Vienna tram type ULF A, Category:Vienna tram type ULF A1 and Category:Vienna tram type ULF B1 all do not have a similar parent category - which makes the list of subcategories of Category:ULF seem inconsistent. darkweasel94 Diskussion/talk/diskuto 21:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agree category has no useful purpose, downmerge contents (it's sole category) and delete. Liamdavies (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted as per discussion. --rimshottalk 23:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
POV category FAEP (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- why? no for me, Food of Italy o Italian cuisine (for example) is a great example of Quality food and is no promotional (for me). This file: File:Extrusion screw speed and fit affecting pasta quality.pdf is the only one in category and does not seem POV --Pava (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- This cateory seems relevant to me. It could contain subcategories like Category:QWpsr, Category:Appellations (cf. en:Category:Appellations) and Category:Organic food for instance and also by country stuff like Category:Food quality in Italy (which would itself contain Category:QWpsr of Italy and equivalents of en:Category:Italian DOC or en:Category:Italian DOCG). - Olybrius (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment perhaps this is useful for food testing, like coffee tasters (Category:Coffee cupping)?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like it's not a POV category, but it was obviously (and intentionally) misused by Pava. Just For The Record: He tried to enforce the same nonsense here.--FAEP (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept after cleanup. --rimshottalk 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Why is this category a subcat of "Food quality" ? FAEP (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- No idea, seems weird. You should ask User:Pava. - Olybrius (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Food from Italy is an example of food quality [1] and [2] Fao in Rome. PS nobody warned me :( !!!--Pava (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Food from Italy is not an appellation and has nothing to do with quality certification. - Olybrius (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- ohm sorry, i am wrong category. (now i have know: is a name which refers to another category about Italian food) thank you very much --Pava (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Food from Italy is not an appellation and has nothing to do with quality certification. - Olybrius (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Food from Italy is an example of food quality [1] and [2] Fao in Rome. PS nobody warned me :( !!!--Pava (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Done, not a child of "Food quality" anymore. --rimshottalk 23:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Why was this category a subcat of "Category:Quality" ? FAEP (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- because category High Quality no exist :( . Products of Italy are synonymous of quality source --Pava (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Done, not a child of "Quality" anymore. --rimshottalk 23:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
rename to Cups of espresso, correct capitalization Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Done, as per nom. --rimshottalk 16:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
lone image, already categorized appropriately. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Now two, perhaps more to come, and now also a sub category of Second Cup like other major canadian cities. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept, not empty and well categorized. --rimshottalk 19:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:Chocolate shops, this is simply french term for shop, and is not just french shops Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- A chocolaterie is an (artisanal) place where they make chocolate in the first place and sell chocolates. A chocolate shop sells only. No reason to merge. --Foroa (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: Agree with Foroa. A Chocolaterie is a Chocolate shop, but a Chocolate shop is not usually a Chocolaterie. Category:Chocolaterie should remain a subcategory of Category:Chocolate shops and of Category:Manufacture of chocolate, otherwise the link with manufacture is lost. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment you're probably correct. if no one else more knowledgeable than i chimes in as i do, i say keep. I am used to having many "chocolate shops" in the San Francisco Bay Area which are essentially chocolateries, such as sharfenberger, and not as many non-production chocolate shops (usually we have instead candy shops or general food stores). I can see how its a useful distinction. I think creating a category and article on the english wp for this term would be useful (it exists on the french wp).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept Per Commons:Language policy and Commons:Naming categories, we defer to the encyclopedic name on English Wikipedia, which in this case is at Chocolaterie (and thanks to the original nominator Mercurywoodrose (talk · contribs) for having started the stub on English Wikipedia!) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
"etiquette" is another term for packaging, in spanish i beleive. I suggest Category:Chocolate packaging or maybe Category:Chocolate labels Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Name should be improved, but there is a need for a category for individual packaging, presentation and labeling of each chocolate (portion). --Foroa (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support Category:Chocolate packaging. @Foroa: subcats Category:Chocolate wrappers (individual pieces), Category:Chocolate bar wrappers (bar packaging) Category:Chocolate boxes, etc. ? –moogsi (blah) 15:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- with discussion dead, i created choco packaging, made this a redirect to it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Chocolate packaging and redirected. --rimshottalk 17:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
not a shop which offers massage with melted chocolate, just a shop name, category is not needed. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. [3] --Foroa (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I didnt say that chocolate massage doesnt exist. i said this image is not one of a "chocolate massage" parlor. I seriously doubt that any massage parlor would provide only chocolate massage. we dont have any images of chocolate massage on WC, so its an empty category if kept. OK, i just noticed the second window lists chocolate massage as a service. so we have one tangential image for chocolate massage. still, categories need to have more than one image, or the potential for more. Category:massage doesnt have categories for oil massage, or other many forms, just a few major ones.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Many categories on Commons start with one single image, the category has the potential to attract real chocolate massage images; this can generate the ideas for people that search images for example in Flickr. --Foroa (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- But theres no image that fits this category: i would have removed it, but we dont clear out categories undergoing CFD. or, we can have a category for this one storefront. then again, maybe its a chain. i would THEN support renaming this to match the stores name in its own language. but none of this matters, as no one reviews these CFD's, im shouting into the void, as is brave editor Foroa, also trying to be heard above the abyssal silence....Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Many categories on Commons start with one single image, the category has the potential to attract real chocolate massage images; this can generate the ideas for people that search images for example in Flickr. --Foroa (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I didnt say that chocolate massage doesnt exist. i said this image is not one of a "chocolate massage" parlor. I seriously doubt that any massage parlor would provide only chocolate massage. we dont have any images of chocolate massage on WC, so its an empty category if kept. OK, i just noticed the second window lists chocolate massage as a service. so we have one tangential image for chocolate massage. still, categories need to have more than one image, or the potential for more. Category:massage doesnt have categories for oil massage, or other many forms, just a few major ones.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Close as keep please, now that we have one valid image.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept, in use now, as per Mercurywoodrose. --rimshottalk 08:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Empty category. 84.61.184.160 12:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Leave it empty and document it properly, it will be recreated every now and then anyway. --Foroa (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Banknotes of Ireland was deleted due to perpetual copyright. --84.61.184.160 07:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- As mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banknotes of Cuba, Cuban banknotes are protected by perpetual copyright. --84.61.184.160 07:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not everyone uploading or categorizing images is aware of that –moogsi (blah) 23:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- As mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banknotes of Cuba, Cuban banknotes are protected by perpetual copyright. --84.61.184.160 07:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Banknotes of Ireland was deleted due to perpetual copyright. --84.61.184.160 07:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Info I've edited the category's description. Rybec (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Banknotes of Ireland should be restored with a similar warning. --84.61.184.160 18:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept with {{NoUploads}}. --rimshottalk 19:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Category is singular and contained a lot of different objects; the cemetery parent category is almost empty without the images of mausoleums, not used any more (one of the mausoleums was extracted to a separate category); Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion –moogsi (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
This request for discussion applies to all subsidiary categories (e.g. "Category:Apples as aliments"). It may just be my particular variant of English (Eastern/Southern/Appalachian American English), but "aliment" is a very uncommon choice of words for a very basic concept. The aliment concept doesn't even have it's own wikipedia article under that meaning (being instead a redirect to "Nutrition"). The question is why, if it is such an uncommon term for a common category, is it being used, especially in a globalized setting where many users' English vocabularies are going to be limited? It seems "Fruit as food" or "Fruit as foodstuffs" would be much more common, but there isn't so much as even a redirect from these. It seems that there was a renaming of these by bot some time ago without discussion, so there is no record to go on for its naming. Does anyone know anything about this? And is there support for a more plain-english term for it, such as the aformentioned "fruit as food", "apples as food", etc.? --Morgan Riley (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is an odd choice of a low-frequency word, which could be replaced by "as food". "As aliments" only seems to be applied to fruit and its subcats, and to water (Category:Water as aliment, i.e. drinking water). Would suggest:
- as aliment/s → as food
- Category:Water as aliment merge → Category:Drinking water (its parent category)
- Unless anyone knows better about the Food category tree –moogsi (blah) 20:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- I always found it a strange naming indeed, but "Fruit as food" is not correct in the sense that all fruit is food. Maybe we could align with Category:Food by main ingredient and use "Fruit-based food", "Apple-based food", ... --Foroa (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose STRONGLY -- respectfully, "-based" & "-as main ingredient" are both DEEPLY problematic wordings for handling food-topics. how do we determine a "main/base" ingredient? what about recipes in which the ingredient is used but not as "main/base"? going down this path will cause a great deal of future pain & grief (as a main ingredient!) not to meantion a great deal of extra sorting-work. i dont care if "aliment(s)" is the term we choose or not, & yes it's probably more familliar in european & international english, than in regional dialects in the usa. but clearly we do need to agree on some useage, & "main/primary/based" JUST DOESN'T WORK for prepared foods & recipes. Lx 121 (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it's complete nonsense, the main ingredient of a food is one is contains most of (aside from very basic ingredients like eggs, water, flour, sugar, etc.) Bear in mind also that foods can have more than one main ingredient, and exist in more than one of these categories. Maybe that whole tree needs a rethink, but you're a bit late to strongly oppose this tree itself... it already exists at Category:Food by main ingredient. The proposal is to align these categories with it to remove "aliment" which is not a high-frequency word in English –moogsi (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- While I can follow the logic for the main ingredient (depending on what you understand by "main"), there is nothings wrong with fruit-based, apple-based, ... food. --Foroa (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support: that sounds sensible –moogsi (blah) 11:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I always found it a strange naming indeed, but "Fruit as food" is not correct in the sense that all fruit is food. Maybe we could align with Category:Food by main ingredient and use "Fruit-based food", "Apple-based food", ... --Foroa (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Support We certainly need some change, or at least an agreed on explanatory message that can be added to all the sub-categories. It seems like "X-based food" should work. JesseW (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Support I arrived here through Category:Oranges as aliments, and it struck me as odd. In Portuguese the word "alimento" means simply "food", being a slightly more formal alternative to "comida" (ditto for its derivative words). I though that maybe "aliment" was an obscure English word with a particular meaning, but it is just a fancy, archaic synonym for "food". I think all this was caused by a Portuguese-speaking editor with poor grasp of English — "…as food" should replace "…as aliment" in all instances, as nothing else was intended. Also: The criticism of opposers above does not affect the renaming decision — if "Fruit as food" is unsuited, so is "Fruit as aliments". -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Support "XYZ as food" seems eminently sensible. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks like consensus — even the only opposition is about an unrelated topic. I’ll go ahead and rename in category names "as aliment(s)" to "as food". -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
What would you expect to be in this category? (Assuming you have no knowledge of oscilloscopes) –moogsi (blah) 20:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly what's in it. Why wouldn't I? It's not a well-known term, but it is a real and sourceable term for just the sort of diagram shown here.
- If we need to disambiguate this from "diagrams of eyes", then we can do that as and when it's needed, not before. Mind you, they would probably be under Category:Diagrams of eyes anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- As Andy said Keep, despite this type of diagrams is named "eye pattern" in English Wikipedia.--Torsch (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Took me longer to find Optics diagrams of the human eye than it did this category. Still a really dumb question, though –moogsi (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Should Category:Bays be a subcategory of Category:Coasts? Bays can be either coastal or on lakes and reservoirs. Another editor has argued that Category:Bays of Wales should be a subcategory of Category:Coasts of Wales because nearly all bays in Wales are coastal. However, this produces a situation where images of bays on lakes high in the Welsh mountains are now part of the Category:Coasts of Wales category tree. I suppose that it could be argued that the shore of a lake is a "coast", but that seems to be stretching it a bit to me. Other opinions would be welcomed. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose subordinating Bays to Coasts. We use categories to generalize. If we don't have a generalized concept, categories aren't very meaningful. In the English language I expect to find bays in both coastal areas and in stream pools. An exceptional instance shouldn't define the generalization. I would expect that somewhere we can find an island without any coastal bays and only fresh water bays--that would still be an exception, not a counter rule to coastal bays. A similar situation exists with Category:Bars which is subordinate to both Category:Rivers and Category:Coasts except that Bars doesn't have any geographic divisions.
Does the Welsh language use only one word covering both coastal and fresh water bays?
SBaker43 (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be agreement that since bays can be in ocean or lakes, but coasts only border oceans, that bays can't be a subcategory of coasts. Also a bay can include water some distance from land which is no longer part of the coast. --ghouston (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
IMO Umbenennung zu Category:Flight North Sea coast (Germany) wäre sinnvoll (ohne das "?"). Einwende? Flor!an (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ja, habe ich. Da der liebe RaBoe auf seinen Bildern nicht vermerkt hat, was er da fotografiert hat, ist es ohne Weiteres möglich, dass da auch Aufnahmen von z.B. Holland drauf sind. Das ist der Grund für dieses "?" Gruß --El. (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- => Category:Flight North Sea coast (Germany or Netherlands) stattdessen? --Geitost diskusjon 12:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Man müsste eben mehr über die einzelnen Aufnahmen wissen. Evtl. sind ja auch welche von Dänemark dabei. --El. (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- => Category:Flight North Sea coast (Germany or Netherlands) stattdessen? --Geitost diskusjon 12:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Da die Dateien sowieso bereits in Kategorien wie "Fotoflug ..." drin sind, können wir dies m.E. als reine Wartungskatagorie betrachten in dem Sinne, dass Fotos mit hinreichend bestimmten sonstigen Kategorien (in der Regel also Ortsangaben o.ä.) aus dieser Kategorie gelöscht werden können. Irgendwann ist die Kategorie dann leer und kann gelöscht werden. -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Gute Idee, ich hab nix dagegen. --El. (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Done: all ca. 1500 images moved to the appropriate "Fotoflug [date]" subcategories of Category:CPB-Projekt Fotoflüge I and Category:CPB-Projekt Fotoflüge II (was missing in many cases), and (as far as possible) moved also to subcategories of Category:Aerial photographs by country (mainly to various German subcategories, some to Denmark). Many still unidentified images are now in the existing "Fotoflug [date] - uncategorized" subcategories. Holger1959 (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
upmerge cheese flavoured snackfoods to cheese based food, this layer is not needed Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- i would respectfully suggest reversing the merge & putting "cheese-based food" INTO "compound foods containing cheese" (or some renamed equivalent), as the "defining terminology" 'cheese-based' is DEEPLY problematic.
- -based implies that this is the primary ingredient.
- is a pizza "cheese-based"? (even if it's a cheese-pizza)
- is a cake or pastry or ANY dish that contains cheese "cheese-based"?
- just how much cheese is needed (or what % of cheese-content), to qualify a dish as "cheese-based"? & can you picture the user-discussions about what does & does not "qualify"(!)? xD
- see the problem?
- Lx 121 (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Turned into a redirect to Category:Cheese-based food, as the arguments above are all settled convention now. a food can be in 2 or more "based" categories, depending on whats in it and what proportions.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Category redirected by Mercurywoodrose a year and a half ago. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Sparsely populated category tree, of dubious value, created by a contributor who tends to create year categories like a machine regardless of whether they are warranted or not. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- The nomination applies to all of the subcats therein. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Those in the 2000s are highly populated. J 1982 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not really. You have spent some time in the last day scrambling, and now you have a small number of subcats with more than a dozen images. Still doesn't address why we need this entire category structure, when a simple history of Thanksgiving by country would have done the trick. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- We have Thanksgiving by country too. J 1982 (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that's enough. No need for annual. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not really. You have spent some time in the last day scrambling, and now you have a small number of subcats with more than a dozen images. Still doesn't address why we need this entire category structure, when a simple history of Thanksgiving by country would have done the trick. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Those in the 2000s are highly populated. J 1982 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The categories are intressant. Obelix (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- One's subjective level of interest is not a valid rationale for a category tree. And we'd still have the content, and categories related to Thanksgiving, which is presumably what interests you. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment It would be helpful if the nomination explained what criteria they are using to characterize these categories as unwarranted. I am not aware of any policy or guideline that counsels against sparsely populated categories. Geo Swan (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)- Keep I don't see a problem. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- No consensus, or consensus to keep. Evrik (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
This category should be disambiguated. Monumento Histórico is Spanish for Historical Monument and hence it is a common term in Spanish speaking countries. Currently, this category includes images mainly from Chile. Jespinos (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, I would prefer rename and deletion as people tend to drop anyway masses of images in such categories without bothering if it's right. Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories requires quite some maintenance work and few people maintain/expand disambiguation categories. --Foroa (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- You can feel free to make a decision about the best solution for this issue. Jespinos (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Please, delete this category, its a duplicate of Category:National monuments in Chile. --Warko (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Foroa: There seems to be consensus to delete as per your suggestion. Can you delete and close? I'll move the contained images to the most appropriate category. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted per consensus. --Achim (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
This category, if at all it should exist, should be titled differently. "Asian Regional Conference" is not even the title of the conference. It can either be "1947 ILO Asian Regional Conference" or we can have a parent category instead "ILO Asian Regional Conferences" or something similar. Thanks, Rahul Bott (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- NOTE: I've copied the files to a more descriptive category. This redundant category can be deleted now. Rahul Bott (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, moved to Category:1947 ILO Asian Regional Conference. --rimshottalk 23:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Relevance? FAEP (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as over-categorisation. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
FAEP & Huntster: Delete category and put sub-categories in Category:Components of the International Space Station and Category:Alenia? It doesn't seem like I should put categories for individual ISS components directly in Category:Turin - Should I just leave Turin out, or place them in some sub-category of Turin? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Themightyquill, I don't see the value in classifying the ISS components by which city they were built in. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Neither do I. I'll leave Turin out. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Moved all sub-categories appropriately and added {{Bad name}} to main category for deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Please move this category to Category:DTM.
Reason: Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters is not suitable anymore as the generic term for this category. After 2005 the name "Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters" is not used in any official regularity and announcements of the DMSB or ITR[4][5]. Since 2005 it's used like a trademark, and not like an abbreviation. And the new category is also useable for DTM, Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft and Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters. Regards --Pitlane02 talk 10:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Commons don't use acronyms as they are very country and culture specific. See de:DTM (Begriffsklärung) en:DTM ... --Foroa (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Normally also my opinion, but here it's wrong, because today it's not an abbreviation any more, it's used today like a trademark, and this new "trademark" is also usable and understandable. Please read the actual and the elder 2006 sporting regalities of the DMSB/ITR. You can't find nowhere in this official documents the term "Tourenwagen Master". Background is, today NO touring cars are running in this series, the cars are prototype cars and the silhouettes are like coupes! Perhaps you are able to read also the german article (IMPORTANT: de:DTM!!!) for more background informations (also with sources). Regards --Pitlane02 talk 21:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I can read it and I noticed the mix-up. If you want to use DTM, then it needs to be disambiguated. --Foroa (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support Pitlane02 described why the category should be moved to DTM. He is absolutly right: It is not an abbreviation anymore. --Gamma127 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support I support the argumentation of Pitlane02. He is right. Please move Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters to DTM. Best regards --Abehn (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support for moving the category but Oppose the new category name Category:DTM.
- Most of the subcategories are already containing "DTM", and in similar cases it is current practise to use the acronym, as e.g. in Category:BASF instead of Category:Badische Aninilin- und Soda-Fabrik. But the meaning is not common enough to allow to capture an entire three-letter acronym - especially in a multi-language project as Commons. I follow Foroa, we should name it Category:DTM (race series) or similar. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Your suggestion is very well, let's use Category:DTM (race series). I will supported it atonce, because it solve also my explained confusion. Thx and regards --Pitlane02 talk 11:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to all, I've opened a request for the move by a bot: User talk:commonsDelinker/commands/Category moves, regards --Pitlane02 talk 12:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Done by CommonsDelinker 7 March 2015. --Achim (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
change to Queso fresco or Queso blanco, the terms used for fresh cheeses in latin america Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- with no discussion, i created Category:Queso blanco, and turned this into a redirect to cheese.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- That seems like a good solution to me. BMacZero (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Done by User:Mercurywoodrose. BMacZero (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
upmerge to cheese textures Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support just another 1-file category –moogsi (blah) 20:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- turned into a redirect to Category:Blue cheese, as there arent any closeups of the cheese to qualify as a texture yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Redirected by User:Mercurywoodrose. BMacZero (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:Science Museum (London). Pointless excess level of navigation Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Many categories for institutions have a subcategory "Collections of..". There is a meaningful difference between the museum and the collections of the museum, (museum category can have.. pictures of the museum, logos of the museum, etc.) –moogsi (blah) 11:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- With 8 subcategories and 73 files currently, upmerging this to it's parent category would clearly be detrimental to the parent and contribute to overcrowding of that category, This users obsession with deleting useful categories is against general policy and detrimental to this project, and extra click takes no time at all, what takes time is loading full or heavily used categories especially if you have dial up or a slow connection. Oxyman (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep One thing is the building of the museum, other things are it's collection. The only category that collects exterior views of the building, interior views, and objects that are exposed inside, it's not interesting nor useful. I think that this discussion can be closed: there is no consensus for the proposed deletion of this category. --DenghiùComm (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- With 8 subcategories and 73 files currently, upmerging this to it's parent category would clearly be detrimental to the parent and contribute to overcrowding of that category, This users obsession with deleting useful categories is against general policy and detrimental to this project, and extra click takes no time at all, what takes time is loading full or heavily used categories especially if you have dial up or a slow connection. Oxyman (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Consensus to keep. BMacZero (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
This category is about a Korean painter (Joseon period). Nobody was ever named *Yi Oksan*. Oksan is one of the pen names of the painter, while the 'true name' is Yi U. Source: the Grove Art Dictionary. Since the given name is very short (and prone to ambiguity), I think that introducing the date of birth is a good choice. This leads to Category:Yi U (1542).
--Pldx1 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
No opposition in over three years. Moving to Category:Yi U (1542). - Themightyquill (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Note that this procedure hasn’t been opened for questioning the abovementioned category. I’m not against this category. I am questioning its upper categorization. This is a pilot procedure regarding all the categories Country name women’s national sport name team : do we have to keep them as a subcategory of the alike men’s national team? I suppose that the logics should be categorizing both at the same rank and that there should be a metacategory named Country name national sport name teams (note the plural on teams) where they both should be included. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Closed: ok, after 3 years is clear nobody cares. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
underpopulated, can be safely deleted, file is well categorized Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Weak oppose May as well leave it there unless you think gomolka will drop out of existence this year, or no-one will ever take another free image of it, or it's exactly synonymous with something else. But a rename to Category:Gomolka would seem to be in order –moogsi (blah) 05:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)- Support rename per moogsi. i now understand we can have small categories with only 1 image. and of course, we can have more someday.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Done Renamed to Category:Gomolka (cheese). The qualifier (cheese) was added to distinguish it from other usages, as there are photos of people with surname Gomolka. --Off-shell (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Gomolka (cheese) in January 2016 by Off-shell. Three years later, there is still only one image in the category, so deletion may have been justified, but there was apparently consensus to simply rename. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Upmerge (actually restore) to Category:Puffing Billy (locomotive UK) and Category:Steam engines in the Science Museum (London). There is only one original Puffing Billy. Images of it, whether old or modern, should remain together. We already have separate cats for replicas, but splitting the original apart too is pointless. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- respectfully Oppose -- not all the files we have show the locomotive @ the Science Museum (London). a sub-cat of the files that do show it "in situ" @ the museum can be included as a subcat of the Science Museum (London), HOWEVER, files that DO NOT show the locomotive @ the museum, DO NOT belong in a sub-cat for the museum. rename the subcat to something better, if you can think of it, but "undifferentiating" the files would be a mistake. Lx 121 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- All the modern files we have show the loco in the Science Museum (it isn't moving anywhere, it hasn't been anywhere else in preservation). All the old files show this same loco. I see no reason to split them apart. The only sources of confusion would be with the modern replicas, and those are rightly split already. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- with all due respect, you are simply ignoring the point of my objection: THE PICS OF BILLY IN THE SCIENCE MUSEUM BELONG AS A SUB-CAT OF THE SCIENCE MUSEUM, THE PICS OF BILLY NOT IN THE SCIENCE MUSEUM DO NOT BELONG THERE. Lx 121 (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thankyou, your argument suddenly becomes so much more persuasive when you shout the same thing over and over in block capitals.
- with all due respect, i find block capitals to be useful, when the person i am having a discussion with ignores my points, & repeats their own arguements Lx 121 (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nor was this edit particularly accurate. Puffing Billy is a specific historical locomotive in the UK, not merely every tourist train or cartoon using the text "Puffing Billy". If you're so obviously unaware of this, I wonder how you can really judge this category?
- at the time, i was using hotcat & wanted to see if the cited category (which came up in the hotcat list) had anything to do with the topic at hand. i note that in your comment, you have failed to note that I CORRECTED THE MIS-CATEGORIZATION IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS.
- --this is me using block capitals again Lx 121 (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- at the time, i was using hotcat & wanted to see if the cited category (which came up in the hotcat list) had anything to do with the topic at hand. i note that in your comment, you have failed to note that I CORRECTED THE MIS-CATEGORIZATION IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS.
- The Science Museum is a museum; exhibits are rarely placed in there when brand new, but because they've already had some significant history outside. When we (frequently) create a category for such an individual exhibit, is your implied suggestion now that every item requires two categories, one for its pre-museum history and one for it in the museum? Why? What advantage is conveyed by this? Readers are looking for media related to a topic, the individual, and we ought to give them that media as simply and efficiently as possible. There is no reason or advantage into splitting up coverage of the same subject, merely by its location. This is not a large category and it's unlikely to ever become one. There is no reason (as there might be for a touring exhibit) to split its display into groups by particular performances or appearances.
- The notion that MediaWiki categorization is strongly ontologically defining is a common misunderstanding. It is not, it is not subtle enough to do that, it is a serious mistake to think that it is. All that categorization defines is convenient navigation and grouping for our readers. If it is convenient for us to make a "Things that are exhibited in" category for an exhibit in the museum, it is not a strong implication that every image within that category is of that image whilst being exhibited (only rare cases, such as touring exhibits, benefit from such a split). Such a transitive implication is no more implied there than the other equally implicit membership that Puffing Billy is a district in London, because the museum is itself categorized as a visitor attraction in Kensington!
- We might choose to create these split exhibit by location categories. For some exhibits, like Deltic DP1, that have moved from the Science Musuem to the National Railway Museum, then there's a good case to do so. However in this case, and in most cases, it's simple over-splitting of categories such that it makes the navigation over-fragmented for readers. Andy Ding
- Thankyou, your argument suddenly becomes so much more persuasive when you shout the same thing over and over in block capitals.
- with all due respect, you are simply ignoring the point of my objection: THE PICS OF BILLY IN THE SCIENCE MUSEUM BELONG AS A SUB-CAT OF THE SCIENCE MUSEUM, THE PICS OF BILLY NOT IN THE SCIENCE MUSEUM DO NOT BELONG THERE. Lx 121 (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- All the modern files we have show the loco in the Science Museum (it isn't moving anywhere, it hasn't been anywhere else in preservation). All the old files show this same loco. I see no reason to split them apart. The only sources of confusion would be with the modern replicas, and those are rightly split already. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
ley (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- end result: we simply disagree about this.
- in my opinion, the subcategories for the science museum should contain material relevant to the science museum.
- we also clearly disagree about how "fine-grained" the categorization schema @ wmc should be.
- i'm not sure if there is any point in going any further on this, as we are both simply arguing the same points we started with, using more & sometimes longer words.
- i remain opposed to the merge. it would mess up the science-museum subcats unnecessarily. it does no "harm" differentiating the files in this way; any reasonably competent and-user can simply move between categories. if we actually had a decent amount of material about this engine, we'd be sub-dividing it into even more categories; with some files belonging in more than one of them.
- Lx 121 (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a logical subcategory, the nominator gives no good reason to upomerge apart from saying this category is "pointless" when aparently there is a point Oxyman (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Lx 121 (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Close as keep due to no consensus. The category can be renominated for further discussion if necessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Rename - "gasoline" is either too broad (in some languages) or incorrect (in others). "Gasoline", as the flammable spirit used in gasoline engines or petrol engines is hazardous to use, owing to the risk of its vapour igniting. Instead, safe lamp oils with much lower vapour flammability are used. I find it literally incredible that mining safety lamps would ever be used with motor spirit "gasoline".
If (as I suspect), this name has arisen because "gasoline" in some languages is closer to lamp oil or kerosene, then we should still rename, to avoid confusion elsewhere.
Note that for plumber's blowlamps, both paraffin/kerosene and petrol/gasoline forms exist, but that they are mechanically quite different in construction, owing to their different fuels. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, en:Safety lamp stops just short before the invention of the gasoline safety lamp in 1884 by german inventor Carl Wolf, founder of Friemann&Wolf. Although, the Wolf Safety lamp should be known both in England and America, as Friemann&Wolf has had dependencies in both countrys, which where riped of them in the aftermath of WWI, to become Wolf Safety Lamp Co., New York and Sheffield, respectively. Anyway, gasoline fueled safety lamps burn much brighter and with less (virtually without) soot than oil safety lamps. How to make it explosion proof? The answer, Carl Wolf has found, was to use cotton wool inside the fuel tank. The gasoline will be soaked up by the wool, which delivers it to the wick. This was a rather lengthy explanation, i would prefer if people get used to the subject first, before starting such a discussion (at commons!). It would be not unwise to ask me at my discussion page, i will always kindly explain things.
- To make a long story short: AFAIK gasoline is the right term. We in german call it "Benzin" and those lamps therefore "Benzinsicherheitslampen". --Markscheider (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- So if there is indeed a specific group for gasoline, then how do we communicate this, and how do we check that lamps illustrated actually belong there? Why is there still nothing at en:Safety lamp? I'm unconvinced that File:Donetsk rm 35.jpg belongs in this group. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- While i'm able to check the pics and sort them out here, writing an article on en:wp is probably beyond my limits. File:Donetsk rm 35.jpg is o.k., because there are two gasoline safety lamps in the background. --Markscheider (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- How can one tell that they're gasoline? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I know this types. Left stands a Friemann&Wolf type 300, right (with some degree of uncertainty, because the fuel tank is not visible) a Friemann&Wolf type 300 or 400. I'm a collector and do some repair as well as selling spares. --Markscheider (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- How can one tell that they're gasoline? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- While i'm able to check the pics and sort them out here, writing an article on en:wp is probably beyond my limits. File:Donetsk rm 35.jpg is o.k., because there are two gasoline safety lamps in the background. --Markscheider (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- So if there is indeed a specific group for gasoline, then how do we communicate this, and how do we check that lamps illustrated actually belong there? Why is there still nothing at en:Safety lamp? I'm unconvinced that File:Donetsk rm 35.jpg belongs in this group. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Since no one has answered to my last comment, i consider this case closed and will remove the "Category for discussion template" there. --Markscheider (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Close as keep due to lack of consensus to rename, or perhaps, due to consensus to keep. Markscheider made a good case and received no response in over a year before he removed the CFD tag in December 2015. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be a duplicate of Category:Models by subject. Should these be merged (with one left as a redirect)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- To explain more fully: We have a Category:Categories by subject and a Category:Categories by topic, and I'm not sure that I fully understand the difference, assuming that a difference exists. In this particular instance, though, it seems like there isn't a difference: the 'subject' and the 'topic' of a model (e.g., an airplane model) should be the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- once upon a time i planned 'subject' as 'what is modelled', and 'topic' 'where one uses them': Cat:Architectural models is a 'topic', Cat:Building interior miniatures is a 'subject', Cat:Traffic models is a 'topic', Cat:Car models is a 'subject'. but let's merge. W!B: (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Models by subject by Marcus Cyron in February 2014. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
incorrect grammar, vague. Propose renaming to Category:Portrait paintings of indigenous peoples Uyvsdi (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that the current title isn't clear, but from the content it seems that this category was meant for portraits of Western persons that also show native persons (from Africa, Asia or the Americas). It is not for portraits of those persons. Category:Portraits with natives would be correct, in principle, but it should somehow be made clear that natives of France or Germany are not meant. Note that one parent category is Category:Portrait paintings by companion. --rimshottalk 13:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Portraits of Europeans with exotic aborigines"? --Ghirlandajo (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- The use of "native" implies that the portrait's focus is European, and that the companion is not. It's also a sub-category of Category:Portraits with servants. So I'd say an appropriate rename would be more explicit Category:Portraits of Europeans with non-European servants. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Portraits of Europeans with exotic aborigines"? --Ghirlandajo (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Uyvsdi, Rimshot, Rimshot: Anyone have thoughts on my suggestion above? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. --rimshottalk 08:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- I support something like Category:Portraits of Europeans with non-European servants, but would suggest that it should be combined with or distinguished from Category:Portrait paintings with black slaves (noting that the distinction between portraits and portrait paintings requires new categories to be created in between, and perhaps adding ones for portrait photographs). There are two problems I see with the latter category: 1. it is generally not possible to tell by looking at a portrait whether a dark-skinned person is an unpaid and owned slave or a servant with wages. 2. "Europeans" leaves out the American South prior to 1865, doesn't it? (Though it's probably safe to assume that most of those portraits are in fact of slaves; but note that prior to 1789 it's even more complicated.) Laura1822 (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Portraits of Europeans with non-European servants. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Nominating this category for deletion. Terminology is extremely vague "natives" of where? There's already Category:Clothing of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Category:Dress of Indigenous Peoples. Uyvsdi (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- it is in particular for "portrait paintings" - oil on canvas, not photo or something else depiction of clothing without people. Ethnographic subgenre of European portraiture. --Shakko (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- There isn't anything about "oil" in the category name. "Natives" is undefined and definitely does not reflect a global perspective. A category for Category:Portrait paintings of Native Americans and Category:Portrait paintings of Maori. These are precise and neutral descriptions for categories. Also, in the United States, "costume" is an extremely offensive term when describing Native American traditional clothing. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- Delete: Both the words "costume" and "natives" are inherently racist and offensive in this context. Montanabw (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- There isn't anything about "oil" in the category name. "Natives" is undefined and definitely does not reflect a global perspective. A category for Category:Portrait paintings of Native Americans and Category:Portrait paintings of Maori. These are precise and neutral descriptions for categories. Also, in the United States, "costume" is an extremely offensive term when describing Native American traditional clothing. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- Rename Category:Clothing of indigenous peoples in Western depictions. I really don't understand why people here are so keen to just delete large and well-established categories that are just not very well named. This distinguishes it from photos, which is very useful, but "portrait paintings" is too specific. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's not particularly large nor well-established and the premise is odd, to say the least. Why is it important that these are Western portraits, since many Chinese artists paint highly naturalistic portraits of people wearing traditional clothing? Also any portrait of any indigenous person that isn't nude will feature their clothing, so the emphasis should probably be on the person not the clothes, since the images can also be categorized in the appropriate subcats of Category:Images of clothing or Category:Clothing by nationality, such as Category:Inuit clothing, Category:Native American clothing, etc. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- There's also the poorly named Category:Dress of Indigenous Peoples, which can be used as a category as well. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- One problem, Johnbod, is that, for some reason I have yet to fathom, people seem to treat Native Americans/First Nations people as if their cultures don't exist any more, like Vikings or something. Or, in some cases, the opposite, as if they exist but are some sort of primitive, paleolithic people instead of live human beings in the 20th century world trying to also honor their traditional culture. People who are completely PC in every respect otherwise seem to not "get it" about Native Americans. Not saying this is true of you, but it's a thing I've run across a lot, especially around people from the eastern United States and sometimes Europe. Don't know why, but there you have it. Montanabw (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- reminds me of Bob Dylan who'd sing about any, and every, injustice in the world except for one. I quite like his music. I agree with the deletion. I agree with dispersing the material into the other existing categories, same as every other people and culture. 'Clothing of indigenous peoples in Western depictions' is far too abstract and wordy. Penyulap ☏ 21:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- One problem, Johnbod, is that, for some reason I have yet to fathom, people seem to treat Native Americans/First Nations people as if their cultures don't exist any more, like Vikings or something. Or, in some cases, the opposite, as if they exist but are some sort of primitive, paleolithic people instead of live human beings in the 20th century world trying to also honor their traditional culture. People who are completely PC in every respect otherwise seem to not "get it" about Native Americans. Not saying this is true of you, but it's a thing I've run across a lot, especially around people from the eastern United States and sometimes Europe. Don't know why, but there you have it. Montanabw (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's also the poorly named Category:Dress of Indigenous Peoples, which can be used as a category as well. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- It's not particularly large nor well-established and the premise is odd, to say the least. Why is it important that these are Western portraits, since many Chinese artists paint highly naturalistic portraits of people wearing traditional clothing? Also any portrait of any indigenous person that isn't nude will feature their clothing, so the emphasis should probably be on the person not the clothes, since the images can also be categorized in the appropriate subcats of Category:Images of clothing or Category:Clothing by nationality, such as Category:Inuit clothing, Category:Native American clothing, etc. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- my main theme in wiki is the portrait genre. What I thought, creating this cat - to collect en:portrait paintings (not images of clothing - example, not ethnographic scientific drawings - example), once again - portraits created in Western European tradition of realistic art (chiaroscuro, perspective, visual dimension) depicting concrete, specific sitters (not generalized abstract foregners) with features of individuality, personality (see once again definition of portrait genre). The sitters from nations who where considered in Europe before 20th century as natives, aboriginal, indigenous, outdated (in contrast to China, India, Iran etc with its ancient orientalistic civilizations who were more or less acknowledged). Something to be main category for Category:Portrait paintings of Native Americans and Category:Portrait paintings of Maori (thanks for it). Reference: portrait painting - always oil, tempera and some quite new materials like acrylic (not in use in PD-art); portrait drawing - pen, charcoal, sanguine, water-colour. So, as I am not native English speaker (e.g. the rasism of word "costume" is absolutely obscure for me) please rename it with right and courteous words, but only keeping the category for "portrait paintings", not simply "images". Something like category:Portrait paintings of indigenous peoples in national clothing. --Shakko (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- as an example the difference with people in Indian dress:
-
Category:National costume of India in western portrait paintings -
National costume of India in Indian portrait painting -
Category:Clothing of India in art - it is western depiction of Indian clothing but not the portrait - ethnographic scientific drawing) -
Category:Clothing of India in art - local Indian painter. Not Western art
.jpg)
.png){kind=link}
--Shakko (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't a great parent category for Category:Portrait paintings of Native Americans and Category:Portrait paintings of Maori, since those categories aren't restricted by clothing or culture of the painter. I think I'll create Category:Portrait paintings by ethnic group as a parent, and Category:Paintings of people by ethnic group as a parent for that. --ghouston (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete or Rename. ON top of whatever practical reasons, it is very offensive. "Native Americans" or "Native people" is preferred by modern-day people whose ancestors are depicted. Plus "costumes" is also offensive -- "regalia" or "traditional clothing" would be more appropriate. The modern term for traditional clothing when worn today is "regalia" . I shall leave it to others do figure out where in the category tree this goes or if it is needed at all, but definitely needs a rename! Montanabw (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- How about making categories like Category:Native American clothing in portrait paintings? That could be a subcategory of Category:Native American clothing and Category:Portraits by style of dressing. Most images will also be in Category:Portrait paintings of Native Americans. --ghouston (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- That works for me. Montanabw (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think there'd be too much overlap in categories. How about Category:Portrait paintings of Native Americans in native clothing? --ghouston (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not too fussy about that, just don't say "costume" at all and try to avoid the use of "little n" "native" --"traditional clothing" would work. Native American is fine, Indigenous people of the Americas is fine, let's get this done... been months
- Yeah, it has been a while. I just noticed it again on my watchlist, as one of the easier of various mostly intractable problems. Category:Portrait paintings of Native Americans in traditional clothing is created, and most of Category:Portrait paintings of Native Americans could probably be moved there. --ghouston (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not too fussy about that, just don't say "costume" at all and try to avoid the use of "little n" "native" --"traditional clothing" would work. Native American is fine, Indigenous people of the Americas is fine, let's get this done... been months
- I think there'd be too much overlap in categories. How about Category:Portrait paintings of Native Americans in native clothing? --ghouston (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- That works for me. Montanabw (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Once the Native Americans have been moved, there's not much left in the category. I'm going to nominate it for deletion. Although the creator of the category and one or two others wanted to keep it, there were more votes for delete. All parts of the name "National costumes", "natives", and "western portrait paintings" are problematic and don't fit well into the existing category structure. --ghouston (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I started Category:Feral cats by location, a few days ago. Another contributor has come along and started a very similar category: Category:Feral cats by country. Without any attempt at discussion they poached all the images in the category I started, putting them in the new category. The original category has since been deleted. I see several reasons to organize by location, instead of by country. First, we might know an images was from a particular mountain range, or river basin, but not know which country it was from, if the mountain range or river basin spanned national boundaries. By location is more flexible, and would allow, for instance, Category:Feral cats of the Danube basin, or Category:Feral cats of the Pyrenees. I've been contributing here for eight years, I have encountered lots of instances when a usurper hijacks the contents of an existing category, but I don't remember ever encountering a single instance when I thought an unexplained hijacking was justified. Even when the hijacker is called upon to explain their hijacking, and it turns out they did have good reasons, after all, the unexplained hijacking is a mistake for several reasons. First, the hijacking upsets other people. Second, if there is a valid justification, it should go on the record, because those who started the original category deserve to be informed as to why the categor name they initially chose was a mistake -- if in fact it was a mistake. Geo Swan (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- No hijiacking by my side. But such categories should be by country, or at least by city. An hypotetical category Feral cats of the Pyrenees will be a subcategory of both Feral cats in France and Feral cats in Spain. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan: All your statements are true, but is there some need for that flexibility? Do we need Category:Feral cats of the Danube basin, or Category:Feral cats of the Pyrenees ? Usually we can tell what country a photo was taken in, unless it's an aerial photo of maybe a photo of a mountain that crosses a border. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: -- is there a need for that flexibility? Can't we USUALLY tell where an image was taken? Yes, we do need that flexibility, because a substantial minority of the time WE CAN'T TELL WHERE AN IMAGE IS FROM. Additionally, there is a smaller minority of images, which have misleading clues that strongly imply the wrong location, or date, or author.
So, yes, we absolutely do need that flexibility.
I am going to note here that Blackcat -- aka Sergio -- showed not one iota of recognition of how highly disruptive his action was. That is really disturbing for a project where we should be able to trust other contributors. Even if we can't always trust other contributors will always make the right choices, we should be able to trust that they will own up when it is made plain they made a huge mistake. Geo Swan (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Geo Swan, four years have passed since this discussion has started. In this period I did nothing on those categories, how can you accuse my actions of being disruptive, provided that you had the possibility to subcategorize whatever you liked below that main level of categorization? I noticed there's a category Feral cats in Catalonia which is a subcategory of Feral cats in Spain. Still I have to understand how the categorization by country is disruptive of your schema, since they can overlap. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- You ask how your high-handed actions were disruptive, NOW? Do you really mean that four years have passed, and only NOW are you trying to understand my point? Wow. I am frankly shocked.
- The conventional, non-disruptive way of addressing a concern that you think an existing category's name was imperfectly chosen is to place a {{Move}} tag on it, with your suggested improved name, and your explanation as to why your suggested name is superior.
- I've no idea what you have been doing, this last four years.
What you did four years ago, however, was, IMO, disruptive. No one is saying you shouldn't have an opinion on how images should be categorized. Recognize, however, creating a new category, on your sole judgment, and raiding an existing category, emptying it of members, to fill your new category, is not high-handed. It is easy to do, and hard to undo.
Bear in mind that empty categories are routinely deleted. The deleting administrator has no way of knowing the earlier category someone like you emptied, was, recently full of members. The WMF software provides no mechanism for an administrator to detect an empty category they are deleting was, recently a viable, active category. It is a serious weakness of the WMF software. But this is no excuse for you to have behaved as you did.
When an existing category is deleted, following an overly bold and counter-policy raid, like yours, its history is lost. This is bad. The talk page, the edit summaries, in the revision history, record different contributor's opinions as to how the category should be used, what categories it should be listed in.
So, even if your new category name is no worse than the earlier name, you lost the history. This is a very, very bad consequence. I am not infallible, you are not infallible. Revision histories that record the addition and removal of parent categories are very valuable, because some of those earlier contributors may have had insights or experiences you and I don't have.
All of these terrible consequences of the raiding of existing categories from contributors like you could be avoided if you followed our policies, guidelines and conventions.
If you really thought Category:Feral cats by country should replace every usage of Category:Feral cats by location what you should have done is follow convention, and use a {{Move}} tag. Among the reasons why this is superior is that, when you use this tag: (1) the old category is not deleted, so the revision history is not destroyed -- the category gets a new name; (2) other interested parties have a week or so to respond, and challenge your reasoning -- who knows, they might get you to change your mind; (3) you are required to articulate your rationale -- you know what... a lot of the time, when people have to write down their rational, they realize they didn't have a very strong reason, in the first place; (4) if an administrator approves the move a robot does the tedious work of putting the new name on all the existing images. A drawback for the impatient, is that they have to wait. Well tough. This is supposed to be a cooperative project, so you have to work with other contributors, and take their opinions into account.
Some people might think I am being too tough on you. But you have not shown one iota of recognition that you made a mistake. I don't see any point on spelling out a mistake, when the perpetrator has shown they know they made a mistake. But, my experience here on the WMF projects, is that when people are argumentative about recognizing they made mistakes, it indicates they don't understand their mistake, and they keep on making the same mistake, over and over again.
I own up, when I recognize I made a mistake. I look to other contributors to do the same. Geo Swan (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Geo Swan, four years have passed since this discussion has started. In this period I did nothing on those categories, how can you accuse my actions of being disruptive, provided that you had the possibility to subcategorize whatever you liked below that main level of categorization? I noticed there's a category Feral cats in Catalonia which is a subcategory of Feral cats in Spain. Still I have to understand how the categorization by country is disruptive of your schema, since they can overlap. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: -- is there a need for that flexibility? Can't we USUALLY tell where an image was taken? Yes, we do need that flexibility, because a substantial minority of the time WE CAN'T TELL WHERE AN IMAGE IS FROM. Additionally, there is a smaller minority of images, which have misleading clues that strongly imply the wrong location, or date, or author.
- @Geo Swan: All your statements are true, but is there some need for that flexibility? Do we need Category:Feral cats of the Danube basin, or Category:Feral cats of the Pyrenees ? Usually we can tell what country a photo was taken in, unless it's an aerial photo of maybe a photo of a mountain that crosses a border. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan: You seem to feel very strongly about this, despite nearly four years having passed. In terms of Blackcat's actions from three years ago, perhaps Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems would be a better place to discuss than here. Whether his actions were respectful or not shouldn't decide our categorization scheme. In terms of categorization, I would suggest you create Category:Feral cats by location and put Category:Feral cats by country inside it. If there are additional images of feral cats where the country can't be located but the supra-national regions can be, you might create them, especially if a regional sub-category of Category:Animals of Europe already exists. There's no reason we can't have both styles of categorization. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- That said, this CfD is improper. It inferes that there cannot be both categorization by country and by location. There must be a strong reason for questioning the existence of a category by country, and this is not the case. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see what needs to change at this point, with Category:Feral cats by country a subcategory of Category:Feral cats by location. The location category isn't doing much at the moment, but somebody may find a use for it some day. If there are no objections, I think this can be closed. --ghouston (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- That said, this CfD is improper. It inferes that there cannot be both categorization by country and by location. There must be a strong reason for questioning the existence of a category by country, and this is not the case. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Closing as above. --ghouston (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)