Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2018/09
Category names should be in English (para o português, veja esta página), at least for purely descriptive titles like this one. Proposing, therefore, a rename to Category:Demonstration in front of the National Museum (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), 2018-09-03. Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Support ~★ nmaia d 14:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose{{pt|Paz e bem! O evento ocorreu no Brasil, a língua oficial do Brasil é o português. Além disto não se deve traduzir nomes próprios.]]Eugenio Hansen, OFS ([[User talk:Eugenio Hansen, OFS|talk}}) 16:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Eugenio Hansen, OFS: As far as I know, this is just a general description of the event, not a proper name...-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC) :@DarwIn: o nome próprio é o do Museu, que querem também traduzir. Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose suggested option, but Support move to Category:Demonstration in front of the Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro - 2018-09-03 to be coherent with the main category.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose suggested option, but Support move to Category:Demonstration in front of the Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro - 2018-09-03 to be coherent with the main category, following the advices of Eugenio Hansen, OFS ([[User talk:Eugenio Hansen, OFS|talk}}) that proper names should be written second the spelling of record, having as reference Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Proper_names ★ Lu Brito ★ (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well, since the parent category is Category:Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, I can be fine with this idea, DarwIn and Eugenio Hansen. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Closed: Consensus reached for moving to Category:Demonstration in front of the Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro - 2018-09-03 (
Done) Thank you people for reaching consensus so fast.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Where we can veryfie the infomrations about this person? Sanandros (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @User talk:Sanandros Valid question since he was a SECRET agent. Luckily the Dutch Wiki has a page on him with good sources. nl:Henry Druce Kind regards Poppo154 (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Done: OK I can accept that.--Sanandros (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC). --Sanandros (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
mistake, true name is Argiope florida Brunei (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. @Brunei: In the future, you can nominate categories with typos for deletion using {{Bad name|Argiope florida}} (ie. fill in the correct name) on the old category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Empty category created by serial sockpuppet User:Futurewiki. Lambert, Mississippi is one block long and has no downtown. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Magnolia677: I tagged the page with {{Empty page}} to get it deleted. Many cases like this can be handled that way instead of starting a discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
empty category Labattblueboy (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Empty page}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Closing -- category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The toys are copyrighted, making this a derivative work. See COM:TOYS. I eat bananas 101 (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- @I eat bananas 101: Many of the images in this category may be derivative works, but it's at least plausible that there could be a copyright cleared image in the category. In other words, the category is not the problem. Please nominate the images that you believe to be copyright violations. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Just delete the images of the toys that are copyrighted. I eat bananas 101 (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- @I eat bananas 101: Not my priority at the moment, sorry. - 17:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I want to delete photos Akinaakud (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Akinaakud: CFD is for discussing categories, not photos. If you want to delete the photos, you need to nominate the individual files for deletion, not the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Depicted en:Shqipe N. Duka is notable. Uploader's request is valid reason only during first week after upload; here 2½ years have passed. Free licenses are not revocable. Akinaakud has previously tried to delete the photos through regular deletion request (claiming, that depicted person isn't Shqipe N. Duka) and they were kept. Taivo (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
category empty, not used. Labattblueboy (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
empty category Labattblueboy (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
empty category Labattblueboy (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
empty category Labattblueboy (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I DONT KNOW 163.200.101.52 14:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- What don't you know? Why does this need discussion? Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Closing nonsense nomination by anon-ip. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
What means "Military of Rukla" and why it is a subcat of "Military of Lithuany" but has amercian an german soldiers in the cat? Should we not rename it "Military in Rukla" and introduce a category "Military in Lithuania"? Sanandros (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that Category:Military of Rukla doesn't make sense. We might move to Category:Lithuanian Land Forces Rukla Base which might more legitimately fall under Category:Military of Lithuania. Some of these files could also fit under Category:Military exercises of Lithuania. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- If I type "Rukly military base" in google I get "Lietuvos kariuomenes Didziojo Lietuvos Etmono Jonuso Radvilos mokomasis pulkas" and "Lietuvos Didziojo Kunigaikscio Algirdo Mechanizuotasis Pestininku Batalionas". Maybe the forum of Lithuanians can help us.--Sanandros (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
There are 5 batallions in Rukla. "Lithuanian Land Forces Rukla Base" maybe the right name. Hugo.arg (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Hugo.arg: Does there not exist an official name of this base? I found here the entrance of the base but I can't read the sign.--Sanandros (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
lt:Gaižiūnų poligonas (Gaižiūnai polygon} is the name of the whole area. Hugo.arg (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- The I'd prefore category:Gaižiūnų poligonas as a new category. @Themightyquill: All right?--Sanandros (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- How would you feel about it Category:Gaižiūnai Polygon? [1] [2] - Themightyquill (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I thought the correct translation of lt:Poligonas is en:Proving ground? Or is the en article missing something?--Sanandros (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- How would you feel about it Category:Gaižiūnai Polygon? [1] [2] - Themightyquill (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't propose that we come up with our own translation. I'd prefer keeping the original to that. But since Gaižiūnai Polygon is used by the government in its English press releases, it seems fair to use that. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok then i move it.--Sanandros (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Done: moved to Category:Gaižiūnai Polygon. --Sanandros (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Так как не знаю как пожаловаться на ваши действие по отношению ко мне пишу здесь для уведомления вас о том что ваши действие по отношению к моим публикациям обсалютно непрыемлимы. Получается что некоторые азербайджанцы могут оскорблять армян а мы не можем их ответить. У меня создается впечатление что не мало денег вы получайте от властей Азербайджана ДЛЯ ПУБЛИКАЦИИ ДЕЗИНФОРМАЦИИ И УНИЖЕНИЕ ДРУГОГО НАРОДА..Раз у вас так все честно почему не блокируйте азербайджанских пользовотелей которые оскорбляют армян. Противно и не допустимы ваши действие. 95.53.35.178 14:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Closing nonsense nomination by anonymous IP. The category has nothing to do with Azerbaijan or Armenia. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
No reason to dedicate a category to one image in eight different languages, except to complicate searches and comparisons of images. This category must be removed.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussion grouped at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; gray with yellow face. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Style or colors are secondary informations in this geometry, this category must be removed.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Grouping discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; gray with yellow face. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
speedy delete, redundant of Category:McClure's Magazine, 1897 Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW: I agree —Akme (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. Category:McClure's Magazine, 1897 predates Category:McClure's magazine, 1897, and it also matches the parent category Category:McClure's Magazine. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
A category that was wrongly named, then corrected to fit in with the other subcategories so the original is now a redirect, should it be deleted or not? Jamc2 (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:2017 Rose Bowl. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Created category in error. Meant to create it as a given name. William Graham (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- @William Graham: Are you planning to add content to Category:Kirstjen (given name) or should that be deleted as well? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: There was a category that was added automatically by a Wikidata Infobox template, but it wasn't propagating so I just forced it. William Graham (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Created in error and deletion requested by the creator. @William Graham: Accidents happen. Next time, feel free to use {{Bad name}} for typos and other non-controversial deletion requests. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
pls delete, it's empty Pikador (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Requested deletion by creator immediately after creation. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
hoax (the associated article pl:Władysław Turzycki was identified as a hoax and speedy-deleted; this category and all associated illustrationas by Qwertyizm are hoaxes as well) Michał Sobkowski (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Done: deleted as empty. --Sealle (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I mistakenly created this category after misreading the registration on a series of photos of an airplane that actually had registration C-GGLO. Serves no useful purpose until there is a photo of that plane. Sharpery 18:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. @Sharpery: Next time you make a typo or other uncontroversial mistaken, feel free to use {{Bad name}} as this doesn't require discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Vlil på Smilla jenny 😴😴😴😴 213.134.106.125 11:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Nonsense, nothing to discuss. --jdx Re: 18:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Should be merged into Category:1840s in paleontology Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Disagree, but it could use some filling in. Mind holding off on a merge if I can get some more media/subcategories there? Abyssal (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok. However, I didn't understand the distinction between both categories. What kind of event in paleontology is unrelated to work? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Works as in literary works. So the main category would have photos of paleontologists, fossil excavations, life restorations of prehistoric creatures drawn that year, etc. Abyssal (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok. However, I didn't understand the distinction between both categories. What kind of event in paleontology is unrelated to work? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- And what kind of works would not be publications? The category tree starts at Category:Publications by subject and I'm suprised that "publications" is insufficient here. Among other issues, "works" seems redundant. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Fictional as opposed to scientific works. I didn't think there'd be enough of them to justify their own category by time. Abyssal (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- To make the distinction about the categories more clear, what about renaming Category:1840s publications and works in paleontology to Category:1840s publications in paleontology (preferred; after all, fictional works are published, too) or Category:1840s publications and literary works in paleontology? Similar for all other decades, of course. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm okay with either one of those. Abyssal (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- To make the distinction about the categories more clear, what about renaming Category:1840s publications and works in paleontology to Category:1840s publications in paleontology (preferred; after all, fictional works are published, too) or Category:1840s publications and literary works in paleontology? Similar for all other decades, of course. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Fictional as opposed to scientific works. I didn't think there'd be enough of them to justify their own category by time. Abyssal (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think the former is best. We don't have a category tree for "Publications and literary works". - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok. I'll wait until 1 Oct for further opinions (per COM:CFD) and then close with consensus to rename each "XXXXs publications and works in paleontology" to "XXXXs publications in paleontology". - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
No new opinions - closing as consensus to rename Category:1840s publications and works in paleontology to Category:1840s publications in paleontology, similar for all other decades. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Would it be possible, for all the subcategories of Category:Sculptures by artist and Category:Paintings by artist to be renamed in a parallel structure (e.g. "Sculptures by artist by museum" instead of "Sculptures by sculptor by museum")? I think it would streamline categorization and avoid any confusion if, say, a famous painter also made a sculpture or vice-versa. I realize the current structure isn't inaccurate in any way, but it's inconsistent. It's possible, however, that I've failed to foresee some potential negative result. Themightyquill (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I would agree, and also include artists for other media -- engravers, illustrators, etc. (Several of those are mentioned in the older CFD that I linked above. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have no objection to the proposed revisions. BD2412 T 16:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree too--Oursana (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
No opposition in over a month. Moving to "by artist". - Themightyquill (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've done a lot of it, though Category:Paintings by painter by country of location and Category:Paintings by painter by museum notably remain. Help would be welcome. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Category not needed (not to mention misspelled): contents can go directly under Category:Events of the United States Sixth Fleet. Auntof6 (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. "Miscellaneous" doesn't match with commons categorization structure. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Images upmerged and category deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Category not needed: contents can go directly under Category:United States Fifth Fleet events. Auntof6 (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think images in Category:United States Fifth Fleet events need further categorization, this category is probably used for those that can't be categorized much better. If you lob them all together you can't distinguish between that anymore. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with both of you, but "miscellaneous" goes against commons categorizaiton structure. Other, specific even subcategories would be most welcome, or even types of event sub-categories if that helps. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Images sorted and "miscellaneous" category deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary overcategorization. E4024 (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support This seems like an unhelpful sub-category of a single parent category. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Unclear purpose when there is already Category:Vienna and even Category:Photographs of Vienna. Has only two images by an apparently inexperienced user. Tokfo (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: non-standard naming. As of right now, this category contains only two files, and both are already in specific Vienna-related categories. Was this possibly intended to be a user category? Both of the files currently there were uploaded by the same user, User:GodwinPaya, although a different user created the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: @GodwinPaya: I undid your change here, because the category name you added is not the category being discussed. In addition, the category name you added would not be acceptable, either. If you think the category being discussed is needed under some name or other, please explain here, and we can help you pick a valid name. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
No explanation given. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Proposed name change to fuzz : fuzzbox is not used much, while fuzz is used by guitar companies, guitar players and understood in many languages Skimel (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Fuzzbox might not be the best term, but Category:Fuzz is too ambiguous. See en:Fuzz. What about Category:Fuzz (effects pedal)? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with this one, or maybe Category:Fuzz (effects unit) to keep it consistent with Phaser (effects unit), Delay (effects unit) or Chorus (effects unit). Skimel (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, whatever works. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! The rename is Done :) Skimel (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! The rename is
- Sure, whatever works. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with this one, or maybe Category:Fuzz (effects unit) to keep it consistent with Phaser (effects unit), Delay (effects unit) or Chorus (effects unit). Skimel (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Fuzz (effects unit). - Themightyquill (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Wrong name. Correct is here: Category:Gustaw Manitius Matlin (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Typo fixed. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
accidental duplicate "by artist" when "by painter" exisited Labattblueboy (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Moved to "by artist" as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Sculptures by artist. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
No reason to dedicate a category to one image in eight different languages, except to complicate searches and comparisons of images. This category must be removed.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussion grouped at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; gray with yellow face. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Style or colors are secondary informations in this geometry, this category must be removed.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Grouping discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; gray with yellow face. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Redundant category. The municipalities of Mountain Province can be simply grouped under Category:Cities and municipalities in Mountain Province. I propose deletion of this category. JWilz12345 (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Given that it's a sub-category of Category:Populated places in the Philippines, I would suggest instead a move to Category:Populated places in Mountain Province, along with its peers. That would allow the inclusion of other populated places (villages, etc) that are neither cities nor municipalities. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- "Populated places" is the standard term when multiple types of places are included. We should either put both cities and municipalities mixed together under populated places, or have separate categories for each. There is no category structure for a "Cities and municipalities" category. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with @Auntof6: . Populated places is the standard term for all settlements around the world, regardless of type. As in the case of the Philippines, cities and municipalities are its de jure settlements (not including "barangays"). I suggest merge this "Category:Municipalities of Mountain Province" to the category "Category:Cities and municipalities in Mountain Province", if deletion will cause more confusion or harm than consensus and feasibility.JWilz12345 (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Done: empty and redundant category. Does not follow naming convention of Philippine municipality categories. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary overcategorization. E4024 (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- As it is empty, we might consider its deletion, right? --E4024 (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Empty and obviously unusable. Tagged speedydelete. --Bohème (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Rename to Ershawan Battery Kaihsu Tai (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, because it would match the title of the English Wikipedia article. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Kaihsu: Why rename it to Category:Ershawan Battery? Why did you rename the English Wikipedia article? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. The name should start with “er” according to pinyin (the international standard) and not the (faux-German) “uhr”, for which the only reference source is Wikipedia (and its copies) on the web. – Kaihsu Tai (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support. @Kaihsu: Thanks for the explanation. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Sadly the Wikipedia misspelling has contaminated even the official governmental sources: https://www.boch.gov.tw/information_226_54370.html (the rest of the table largely follows the pinyin standard except for personal names) but the spelling is correct on the main page of the same government bureau (see photo caption) https://en.boch.gov.tw/ – Kaihsu Tai (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
No objections. Moved to Category:Ershawan Battery. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
DAB to something like Category:Memphis (Egypt), there was a consensus at w:Talk:Memphis#Requested move 4 September 2018 that neither are primary and the TN city tends to get lots of images in addition to the fact that "Memphis" appears to be the name uses in most languages while in some languages this Memphis has a different name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Subcats would also need renaming, and possibly checking to be sure their content is for the correct place. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Memphis, Egypt is a best category. Similar to wiki in English --JMCC1 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- I also prefer Category:Memphis, Egypt, and there seem to be no objections, Crouch, Swale. If you want to go ahead and make this change, please be sure to rename all the sub-categories accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Memphis, Egypt and the DAB to Category:Memphis. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
In correct use of preposition. A category with the correct preposition already exists. MNXANL (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted in favour of Category:2018 at Hong Kong West Kowloon Station. Themightyquill (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Is this meant to refer to en:Snow line or something else? Themightyquill (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Snow line. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Xiaoxianchun is not a surname, but Empress Xiaoxianchun's Posthumous name. The correct surname is Fuca. GZWDer (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- It seems unlikely that there would be another person with the name Xiaoxianchun then. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Should be deleted:
- Name is wrong, the right one is Adrian von Fölkersam.
- It’s empty. There is only one file in Commons, now in Category:Fölkersahm family. (In Russian Wikipedia there is another file with questionable origin: ru:Файл:Адриан фон Фолькерзам.jpg.)
Speravir 20:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Moved to Category:Adrian von Fölkersam as this is a clear spelling mistake. No need to delete this category even if there is just one image at the moment. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 12:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Adrian von Fölkersam without redirect. -Themightyquill (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
All four of these files are ripped straight from the game. Clearly meets the threshold of originally required for copyright protection. Please upload a two-dimensional black and white version. I eat bananas 101 (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Once again, "Categories for Discussion" is not the right place to nominate files for deletion. You can make a batch nomination of files for deletion using "VisualFileChange" under gadgets in your user preferences. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Stale discussion and seemingly nothing wrong with the category itself. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Please delete, category existed already with similar name. Is now empty. Sorry Elly (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Spelen met Water. -Themightyquill (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Possible license laundering. Probably otrs not from drinkbox studios I eat bananas 101 (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- OTRS wouldn't have verified the ticket if the proof was not credible. If you want the OTRS ticket verified, this is the wrong venue—ask at the OTRS noticeboard. The files are tagged with the correct authors, licenses, and permissions. czar 01:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- @I eat bananas 101: Please stop nominating categories for discussion because of possible licensing issues with the images. It won't result in any action. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Stale discussion, and seemingly nothing wrong with the category itself. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
This category and the category "Armorial plates" seem to be about the same thing? Should they be merged? Yakikaki (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, to Category:Armorial porcelain plates. Obviously there are also many silver armorial plates as well. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Yakikaki and Johnbod: So the suggestion is:
- Category:Armorial plates
- Category:Armorial porcelain plates (with Category:Coats of arms on porcelain plates redirected here)
Is everyone in agreement? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Go ahead! Yakikaki (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Armorial porcelain plates. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
This index of indices does not serve much purpose, and potentially could create COM:OVERCAT violations. I had created it thinking it might be useful, but thinking on it, I do not think it is. If you know the type and want to browse operators, you would get to the 'aircraft type by operator' category first anyway, and likewise, if you know the operator and want to browse aircraft types, you would get to the 'aircraft of operator' category first, so this seems a useless category for real users. Josh (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- No comments or concerns raised, proceeding to delete unnecessary category. Josh (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The CSeries is now known as the Airbus A220. This category's contents should be merged into Category:Airbus A220. There may be a case for a select few items to remain if they specifically pertain to the CSeries project before its Airbus involvement (logos, marketing materials, project documents), but the aircraft, design, and most everything that is associated with the type should be under Airbus A220. Josh (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- No opposition, Joshbaumgartner, so it looks like you can go ahead. Please leave a redirect from Category:Bombardier CSeries unless you plan to leave it as a subcategory for the few exceptions you mentioned may exist. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- No opposition, closing this discussion, proceeding as noted by TMQ. Josh (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Балет (which appears to be the Bulgarian spelling of Ballet) violates Commons:Language policy. Furthermore, it is and always will be empty, and therefore serves no useful purpose. --Lambtron (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Keep: IMO it doesn't violate Commons:Categories, see also COM:REDCAT. Redirecting a non-English language category name is an advantage and is usual practice. It serves useful purposes: 1st: A user who can read this is shown the way where he has to go. 2nd: If deleted it might be re-created (and populated) by a newbie. And finally: Here are many thousands of category redirects, which are empty of course, but they will not be deleted for this reason. --Achim (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- COM:REDCAT explicitly states that translations such as this should be deleted. And Commons:Categories says category names should be in English except for "proper names, biological taxa and names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language" -- exceptions that clearly don't apply here. Aside from the obvious policy vio, it also is a child category of, and thus appears as irrelevant clutter in Category:Ballet. IMO there is no question it should be deleted but, if it is kept, at the very least it should not be a subcat of Category:Ballet. --Lambtron (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Speedy keep per Achim. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Why do you think it doesn't violate Commons:Categories; would you please explain your reasoning? Lambtron (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- This rule is only about categories, not about redirects. Wikimedia Commons is a multilingual multicultural project. Such redirects is a very elegant compromise between different languages and cultures. This is our usual very common practice. --sasha (krassotkin) 16:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I do see the value of this redirect but, unfortunately, Template:Category redirect seems to automatically categorize the redirect and thus cause it to appear as a child category of whatever it's redirecting to. That's obviously wrong, and it's what initially drew my attention to this. I don't know of any way to prevent this behavior so I proposed deletion to solve the problem; I'd certainly be open to any other workaround that prevents this category from appearing as a child of Category:Ballet (or whatever it redirects to). --Lambtron (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Why do you think it doesn't violate Commons:Categories; would you please explain your reasoning? Lambtron (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've temporarily redirected it to Category:Ballet in Bulgaria so it won't appear in Category:Ballet (where it obviously doesn't belong). There's no good reason that a permanently empty redirect should be listed as a sub-category of Ballet, is there? Lambtron (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've reverted to
{{category redirect|Ballet}}because this spelling is not only in Bulgarian but in various cyryllic languages: Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian etc --Butko (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Butko: You have just created the original problem all over again! As I explained above, this makes Category:Балет a child of Category:Ballet -- which is obviously wrong. Would you please consider finding a way to solve the problem, instead of simply reverting my attempts to fix it? --Lambtron (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- This doesn't make Category:Балет a child of Category:Ballet becouse it is redirect. Usualy if redirecting category empty and you see it as subcategory, you can refresh cache. Just make empty edit. I think that in this case we see it as subcategory because category contains template {{Category for discussion}} which brakes normal logic --Butko (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- I first noticed this problem when Category:Балет was empty, before template {{Category for discussion}} was added. Also, after the problem was reported (at this village pump section), another editor temporarily removed the template as a test, but that didn't solve the problem either. --Lambtron (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- It looks strange. Mediawiki reported that category contained 1 file but category was empty. I've deleted category and create again. Now error is fixed --Butko (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Butko: Thanks! --Lambtron (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- It looks strange. Mediawiki reported that category contained 1 file but category was empty. I've deleted category and create again. Now error is fixed --Butko (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- I first noticed this problem when Category:Балет was empty, before template {{Category for discussion}} was added. Also, after the problem was reported (at this village pump section), another editor temporarily removed the template as a test, but that didn't solve the problem either. --Lambtron (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- This doesn't make Category:Балет a child of Category:Ballet becouse it is redirect. Usualy if redirecting category empty and you see it as subcategory, you can refresh cache. Just make empty edit. I think that in this case we see it as subcategory because category contains template {{Category for discussion}} which brakes normal logic --Butko (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've reverted to
- @Lambtron and Butko: Are we okay to close this discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree to close discussion. Problem has been fixed --Butko (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree; the problem has been fixed and this discussion can be closed. Lambtron (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Done: Kept as category redirect per above. --Achim (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
porque solo tiene un archivo Latemplanza (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's reasonable to keep. Probably merits an article & a Wikidata item. - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Given that the same artist painted two other paintings called "The Condemned Cell" it probably makes sense to sub-categorize by year, just to be clear which painting is which. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept for the sake of differentiation. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Ships in ice is just as useful and avoids needing to make a judgement over which ships are truly stuck or just laid up for winter or just moving slowly, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep generic term --Mattes (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe a redirect could be kept to Category:Watercraft in ice? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm proposing:
Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- What would be include in "Watercraft in ice" that would not fit into "Ships in ice"? Besides a couple pictures of hovercraft I am not sure I saw anything. And these should properly be watercraft "on" ice - not "in" it - as would the whole category of ice sailing which we currently don't link to at all. Rmhermen (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Good point. I thought "Watercraft" was chosen for a reason, but you're right, "ships" does the job. The hovercraft images should be placed elsewhere. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Watercraft in ice with Category:Ships in ice as subcategory containing all files currently. I kept watercraft to preserve Category:Watercraft by condition category tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Category for non notable person containing just personal photos by non-contributor uploaded for the purpose of self promotion. Jotzet (talk) 06:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Categories on Commons are intended to group and organize files, not to declare or judge notability of places, events or people. If the person has 3 photos on Commons, the category is useful to group them.
- Btw, You provided no proof that Karel Šístek is not notable for Commons (according to Commons notability rules) and that the uploader is identical with the depicted person (to consider it as "self-promotion"). --ŠJů (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- If the person is not notable and they are simply pictures of the person, they could/should be nominated for deletion as out of scope. Once they're gone, the category will be deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Commons has not formulated exact criteria of notability and surelly has a broader scope than Wikipedia. Generally, a publicly active person (as a radio presenter) can be notable for Wikimedia projects. --ŠJů (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Either way, here is not the place to discuss it. If Jotzet things these photos are out of scope, the photos can be nominated for deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Commons has not formulated exact criteria of notability and surelly has a broader scope than Wikipedia. Generally, a publicly active person (as a radio presenter) can be notable for Wikimedia projects. --ŠJů (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- If the person is not notable and they are simply pictures of the person, they could/should be nominated for deletion as out of scope. Once they're gone, the category will be deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Should possibly be joined with Category:Atlas de Zoologie, ou collection de figures d'Animaux nouveaux, ou peu connus ... avec une explication. The sources at BHL could be traced back to https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/61213#/summary (for Category:Atlas de zoologie) and https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/86967#/summary (for Category:Atlas de Zoologie, ou collection de figures d'Animaux nouveaux, ou peu connus ... avec une explication); they seem to refer to different scans (in 2012 and 2014) of the same book. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- I would support merging them, perhaps under Category:Atlas de zoologie (1844), unless you want to move Category:Atlas de zoologie to an "Illustrations from..." sub-category. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Atlas de zoologie (1844) and Category:Illustrations from Atlas de zoologie (1844). - 09:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The category should at least be renamed to make the purpose clear: works published in Britain or works about Britain. Moreover, it doesn't make sense to restrict a category to hold only other categories (except for maintenance, which doesn't seem to apply here). Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. Category:Publications about paleontology in the United Kingdom would fit nicely in Category:Paleontology in the United Kingdom. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support – Kaihsu Tai (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Same with Category:Canada Paleontology publications and works categories; it was an orphan category and I was trying to put it in parent categories, but I don't know what it actually means, publications 'about' or 'from' Canada. Thx Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- And now I have also found Category:Paleontological publications and works relevant to Canada. I think we need a broader cleanup and organizational effort here. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Paleontological publications and works relevant to Canada is below Category:Paleontological publications and works by location studied, so I'd guess it is intended to be for publications on paleontological research about Canada. Category:Canada Paleontology publications and works categories is below Category:Paleontological publications and works relevant to North America, so I'd guess it has the very same purpose. Apparently, some categories were created by Abyssal and some by WayneRay , possibly, without knowing of each other. It seems that there is no need for a "published in Canada" category (similar for Britain, etc.), and both Canada categories should be joined.
- In the naming scheme suggested by Themightyquill above, it may be unclear whether "United Kindom" refers to "publications" or to "paleontology". What about Category:Paleontological publications about the United Kingdom instead (not sure whether this is good English)? If there is a need in the future, Category:Paleontological publications from the United Kingdom could be created, and the purpose of both would be clear. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- And now I have also found Category:Paleontological publications and works relevant to Canada. I think we need a broader cleanup and organizational effort here. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that's clearer. We can apply this to the Canadian categories and other parallels as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
--
Attempting to close the discussion today, I found that many categories named "Category:Paleontological publications and works relevant to XXX" below Category:Paleontological publications and works by location studied, many (or all) created by Abyssal. Since 'relevant to' is as clear as, or more clear than, 'about', I suggest to use the former naming scheme, which also is already established for many regions.
If you agree, I'd therefore like to rename
- Category:British Paleontology publications and works categories to Category:Paleontological publications relevant to the United Kingdom; similar for
- Category:Canada Paleontology publications and works categories,
- Category:United States (USA) Paleontology publications and works categories. In July 2018, Ruff tuff cream puff moved the latter to Category:Paleontological publications and works from the United States; however, it happens to contain only works about the U.S., so a renaming would be justified, and would increase systematicity.
In contrast,
- Category:French (livres Francais) Paleontology publications and works categories, created by WayneRay, appears to hold works from France, but about other contries (like Egypt), too; I'd like to rename it to Category:Paleontological publications from France, as discussed above.
I think, this would complete the cleanup. At least, a search for Category:"Paleontology publications" didn't find new problem categories. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Jochen Burghardt: I like your suggestions, but I think these categories warrant further discussion. I'm starting to think that maybe using "paleontological" is pointlessly clunky and that we could probably just use "paleontology publications" without any real loss of clarity. I also think we could simplify categories like "Paleontological publications and works relevant to the Mesozoic" to "Mesozoic paleontology publications". Abyssal (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Abyssal: Ok, so I won't close the discussion in the next weeks. - As for "paleontological" vs. "paleontology", I am indifferent; the latter is shorter, but will require some amount of renaming work. - Using different naming schemes for ages (like Mesozoic) than for countries (like France) appears to be a good idea; if the need for intersection categories will arise in future, their names will fit in nicely (like "Mesozoic paleontology publications relevant to France", as well as "Mesozoic paleontology publications from France"). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Jochen Burghardt and Abyssal: Further discussion, or would you like to close? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm okay with closure and just going with Jochen's last suggestion. We can always start afresh if someone else wants to discuss the naming scheme. Abyssal (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Closing is fine for me, too. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm okay with closure and just going with Jochen's last suggestion. We can always start afresh if someone else wants to discuss the naming scheme. Abyssal (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Implementing my suggestion of 2 Jan 2019 above, but using the naming scheme "Paleontology publications ..." instead of "Paleontological publications ...", as suggested by Abyssal on the same day. This appears to be the consensus. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Misspelling of existing category to which this redirects. Unlikely to be used [[User:Ergo Sum|'''<span style="color:#0645AD">Ergo Sum</span>''']] (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing the misspelling. Here is a cut-and-paste from the Category page in use: Category:Our Lady of Pompeii Church (Manhattan). The en.wiki article is at en:Our Lady of Pompeii Church (Manhattan). I'm not seeing the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- The misspelling you corrected [3] was only in the descriptuion, not in the name of the category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- You may have been trying to suggest that Category:Our Lady of Pompei Church (Manhattan) (note only one "i" at the end of "Pompei"), which redirects to the correct name, be deleted, but I think that misspelling is pretty like to occure, so I would oppose that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Note that the church's official website [4], uses the spelling with two i's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- You may have been trying to suggest that Category:Our Lady of Pompei Church (Manhattan) (note only one "i" at the end of "Pompei"), which redirects to the correct name, be deleted, but I think that misspelling is pretty like to occure, so I would oppose that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- The misspelling you corrected [3] was only in the descriptuion, not in the name of the category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --ℯxplicit 07:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Misspelling of redirect. Should be deleted [[User:Ergo Sum|'''<span style="color:#0645AD">Ergo Sum</span>''']] (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- If it's a likely misspelling, isn't a redirect appropriate? - Jmabel ! talk 23:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --ℯxplicit 07:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Every single photo in the category is out of scope 96.242.16.49 21:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- The vast majority are, but some photos of the facility migh well be in scope. At any rate, there is nothing wrong with the category. Nominate the files for deletion if they are out of scope. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --ℯxplicit 07:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
out of scope images 70.21.203.32 16:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- See Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Files from the Texas Tech University student housing Flickr stream, the other category you nominated. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --ℯxplicit 07:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Can we change the definition of this category? It is currently defined (via hatnote) as "subdivisions or administrative entities of a country". However, this does not fit all countries that are included. For example, regions of the United States:
- ...are not true subdivisions, because the country is not divided into distinct regions. Some of the regions actually overlap, such as East Coast and New England, or High Plains and several of the regions defined by compass directions.
- ...are not administrative, because they have no government or legal administration of their own (as regions of France do, for example).
- ...are mostly areas that happen to have something in common, such as being geographically close (southern US, east coast of the US, wine regions, etc.).
I believe the same is true of Canada, and possibly other countries listed here. If we aren't going to limit this to true subdivisions or administrative areas, I think we should either change the definition or remove the entries that don't fit it. I think the first option would be easier to maintain. Auntof6 (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- What do you think of the lead from en:Region ? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- That would work. We could even include the info in the current hatnote as examples of regions along with that lead info. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I'd say go ahead whenever you have the time. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: OK, I think it's done. See what you think. Especially check my French if you speak French. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. Closing. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Please look at Category:National Scenic Areas, why "S" and "A" are uppercase. I think it should be changed to "Category:National scenic areas".--Kai3952 (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose, the US Forest Service uses this terminology, for instance on this page. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose, on same grounds as Jeff G. It's a proper noun, so it's capitalized. - Jmabel ! talk 01:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support, i.e. rename. The capitals are appropriate for the US subcategory, but because this is a generic international category, US usage doesn't rule. Compare to historic sites: Category:National Historic Sites of the United States has "NHS" because it's a specific US concept, as does Category:National Historic Sites of Canada for the same reason, but the international category has "Nhs", Category:National historic sites. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Kai3952, Jmabel, and Nyttend: How about we just rename this one and Category:National Scenic Area in Taiwan (which needs to be plural anyway unless there is and always will be only one), and leave the US and Canadian cats alone? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't really care about the top-level one, just so long as the ones that are proper nouns are left using caps. - Jmabel ! talk 23:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- That's basically what I was advocating. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't really care about the top-level one, just so long as the ones that are proper nouns are left using caps. - Jmabel ! talk 23:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Kai3952, Jmabel, and Nyttend: How about we just rename this one and Category:National Scenic Area in Taiwan (which needs to be plural anyway unless there is and always will be only one), and leave the US and Canadian cats alone? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:National scenic areas and made the Taiwan category plural, but otherwise left the sub-categories alone. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Propose moving to Category:Boston, Massachusetts, there is discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11/Category:Cleveland, Ohio which has failed to gain consensus, given that it has been disputed if "Boston, Massachusetts" is actually the best name anyway, if ambiguous it makes a better still logic to include the state, Category:Boston (disambiguation) can be moved here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support. I suppose the subcats would also need renaming. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Categories, in my opinion, should be as clear and succinct as possible so as to direct people to where they want to be. Farragutful (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose This would break naming conventions, requiring massive renaming across all of Wikipedia. The article name is w:Boston and naming flows from there. Keep in mind that Commons does not operate alone. LibraryGeek (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- This would not break the NC, the NC specifies that all cities other than those on the AP must have the state included. Category:Phoenix, Arizona includes the state here and on WP and Category:Cleveland, Ohio includes the state here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, codetalker. WTF is "AP?" I assume "NC" is "naming conventions". You seem to have a different idea of what the naming conventions ARE. Please educate me rather than speaking in code. Where do you see your "requirement"? You are correct about w:Phoenix, Arizona but not about w:Cleveland and w:Boston Keep in mind, you need to cooperate with other projects, and your language for categories is English. Commons does not operate in a vacuum. LibraryGeek (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- AP is w:AP Stylebook. The guideline is at w:WP:USPLACE which specifies that cities on the AP list can be at just "Cityname" if they don't require disambiguation, since this one has been disputed, it may require disambiguation. Yes the WP article is at w:Boston but my reference to Cleveland was to Category:Cleveland, Ohio here (not WP). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Also, that guideline is for Wikipedia, where it works a lot better than it does for Commons. The AP stylebook is designed for referring to place names in prose. This works for Wikipedia articles, because when you actually read the article you can tell whether it's for the topic you want. It also works for Wikipedia categories: if an article for Paris, Texas accidentally gets categorized in the Wikipedia category for Paris, France, or vice versa, reading that article lets you know that it's categorized in the wrong place.
- AP is w:AP Stylebook. The guideline is at w:WP:USPLACE which specifies that cities on the AP list can be at just "Cityname" if they don't require disambiguation, since this one has been disputed, it may require disambiguation. Yes the WP article is at w:Boston but my reference to Cleveland was to Category:Cleveland, Ohio here (not WP). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, codetalker. WTF is "AP?" I assume "NC" is "naming conventions". You seem to have a different idea of what the naming conventions ARE. Please educate me rather than speaking in code. Where do you see your "requirement"? You are correct about w:Phoenix, Arizona but not about w:Cleveland and w:Boston Keep in mind, you need to cooperate with other projects, and your language for categories is English. Commons does not operate in a vacuum. LibraryGeek (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- This would not break the NC, the NC specifies that all cities other than those on the AP must have the state included. Category:Phoenix, Arizona includes the state here and on WP and Category:Cleveland, Ohio includes the state here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- On Commons, that guideline doesn't work so well, because Commons isn't based on prose. It's more based on categorizing things to help people find what they're looking for. If an image of something generic -- say a tree, a street, a person, etc. -- is categorized in the wrong category, it can be impossible to recognize the error if there's nothing distinctive in the image. Media and categories get categorized in different ways, by humans and by bots, any of which may or may not categorize correctly. Bots often categorize based on keywords found in the media, without understanding the meaning of the keywords. For example, they may categorize under Paris and Texas, not realizing that they should be categorizing under Paris, Texas. As for humans, some understand the category system better than others, so some are more accurate than others. Some make the same kinds of mistakes as bots do. Some use HotCat, the autocomplete feature of which can easily lead to incorrect categorizing that can be difficult or impossible to detect. Both people and bots often categorize without ever looking at the pages of the categories they're assigning, so we can't depend on them seeing how those categories are categorized or what explanatory text there may be.
- I think we should do whatever we can to ensure correct categorizing. To me, part of that means qualifying a lot more category names than we currently do, in particular place names. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- WP does have the problem with people adding incorrect categories, see this post for example, though much less problem than here and WP categories tend to match their article (other than the few that are disambiguated like w:Category:Plymouth and w:Category:Perth but Commons is multi-language so not everyone will know that a meaning is primary (for example if it isn't primary in their language). Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think we should do whatever we can to ensure correct categorizing. To me, part of that means qualifying a lot more category names than we currently do, in particular place names. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Not moved: There's not a clear consensus to move, and the cost/benefit ratio is pretty damn high given the large number of files and few minor benefit. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
DAB to something like Category:Nancy (France), see w:Nancy for some of the other meanings. While this is probably the most prominent single use of "Nancy", I'd say that the name is common enough to be ambiguous enough to disambiguate, given the ENWP discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to see it at Category:Nancy, France but otherwise, I have no objections to moving it (and all sub-categories). - Themightyquill (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The result was moved to Category:Nancy, France and covert Category:Nancy to a DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Should this be a DAB page like w:Rugby and w:Category:Rugby? Or is this an acceptable container category for the both football and league. The name of the sport comes from the place in Warwickshire but like Boston and Badminton it might still be primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Moved, no objections in over a year and consistent with w:Category:Rugby and w:Rugby. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
This should be a DAB but there is also Category:Bruche (Muse), which apparently is in Germany so maybe it should be disambiguated with "France". Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is a very big category with many pictures and interwikis, while Category:Bruche (Muse) has only one picture used nowhere. So... -- Ji-Elle (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Bruche is a DAB on Fr and now En (before it was about the place in Warrington). The need for disambiguation is higher than on WP, see User:Nilfanion/Disambiguation of places and this comment and the fact the both the native and the largest WP have it as a DAB is pretty telling that it should be a DAB here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- The English DAB is a joke and another proof that almost any POV can be pushed. The French DAB is about two kinds of articles: one about an insect related to the true weevils and two about the same subject: the river Bruche - one article about the river itself and one about the valley through which it runs. This does in fact prove the importance and notabiliy of the river, instead of demonstrating the contrary, that it is only one name among several.--Edelseider (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- How on Earth is the EN DAB a joke? What should it be then? Also the insect can be added to the DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- The English DAB is a joke and another proof that almost any POV can be pushed. The French DAB is about two kinds of articles: one about an insect related to the true weevils and two about the same subject: the river Bruche - one article about the river itself and one about the valley through which it runs. This does in fact prove the importance and notabiliy of the river, instead of demonstrating the contrary, that it is only one name among several.--Edelseider (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Bruche is a DAB on Fr and now En (before it was about the place in Warrington). The need for disambiguation is higher than on WP, see User:Nilfanion/Disambiguation of places and this comment and the fact the both the native and the largest WP have it as a DAB is pretty telling that it should be a DAB here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Now a DAB page with the French river at Category:Bruche (France). Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
duplicate of Category:Rudolf Gustaw Gundlach Matlin (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Matlin: It's a redirect. Someone typing in Rudolf Gundlach would be sent to the right place. Are you sure you want it deleted? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 03:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
To move to a gender neutral title - "Door supervisors"? Liverpoolpics (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Door keeper? Door attendant? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Doorkeeper or Door keeper works. Abzeronow (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Done: moved to Category:Doorkeepers per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 03:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Why is this category not named "Doves in art" ? Sammyday (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- The distinction between "dove" and "pigeon" is inconsistent. There's not much difference between some species that are commonly calked "dove" and some that are commonly called "pigeon". Commons tries to use the least ambiguous term for general categories. That is usually "Columbidae". However, for non-scientific uses, the terms "dove" and "pigeon" have certain connotations: "pigeon" is the bird that congregates in cities and which you see people feeding, and "dove" is the white bird that's a symbol of peace. The symbol is not a specific bird and appears only in art, so maybe "in art" was considered unnecessary. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but this name is a little bit confusing - "in art" will be a good precision, for those who don't know that "Dove" appears only in art. Sammyday (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think "in art" would make sense, and keep people from putting photos of various "doves" in the category. (I just cleared a bunch out). What do you think, Auntof6? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- OK with me. Maybe this could be a disambiguation page. It could include categories for the scientific names of birds commonly called "dove" (mourning dove, ring-necked dove, etc.), as well as whatever else fits: Category:Dove (a disambiguation page) and Category:Doves (band), for example. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think "in art" would make sense, and keep people from putting photos of various "doves" in the category. (I just cleared a bunch out). What do you think, Auntof6? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but this name is a little bit confusing - "in art" will be a good precision, for those who don't know that "Dove" appears only in art. Sammyday (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I'll move the category, if you make the disambiguation page. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: How's Category:Doves (disambiguation)? I included some entries for specific species commonly called doves, and there are others that could be added, but maybe those should be on Category:Dove instead. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Doves in art and made dab page at Category:Doves. Thanks, Auntof6. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Is this category redundant with Category:Venetian Gothic architecture ? I don't see a wikipedia article for Venetian architecture, but there is one for en:Venetian Gothic architecture. Themightyquill (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Jbribeiro1, AnRo0002, and Bgag: I see that you've used this category or Category:Venetian buildings, perhaps you could help define the purpose of this category? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- This is a category for Venetian like gothic architecture in the United States ant not redundant to Category:Venetian buildings --anro (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- @AnRo0002: Category:Venetian architecture is strictly for buildings in the United States? -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- This is a category for Venetian like gothic architecture in the United States ant not redundant to Category:Venetian buildings --anro (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Converted to disambiguation category Themightyquill (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Merge with Category:Nikolay Nikolov, exact duplicate. Jonas kam (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say keep the volleyball category, and turn Category:Nikolay Nikolov into a disambiguation page to match with en:Nikolay Nikolov. We don't have any other Nikolay Nikolov categories at the moment, though we have at least one image of another one (File:Niki nikolov.jpg) and there is certainly potential for more. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support for DAB. We have also Category:Nikolay Nikolov-Zikov--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguated Category:Nikolay Nikolov -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Not needed. Only has one occupant. Biology is the only subject where some categories should not contain files. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Appears redundant with Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero. Seems to me the grandchild cats could use Template:CatCat like other cats. Maybe User:Liné1 can tell us what benefit they saw in creating Category:Biology categories that should contain no files. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Auntof6
- You can suppress Category:Categories that should not contain files.
- But I need Category:Biology categories that should contain no files. Badly.
- Best regards Liné1 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Liné1: Could you please explain why you need it badly? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- With catscan I can find all the files added to thoses categories. From time to time I check those files and remove the category
- Do you understand why those categories should contain no files ?
- Best regards Liné1 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- You could also do that if the categories were in Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero, like most other categories that shouldn't contain files. In fact, I periodically check for exactly that, using a catscan function that's linked on the category page. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Each of us takes the buden he chooses. I understand the biology categories. Believe me when I say that it is enough work for a contributor. Liné1 (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you're saying here. If you want this discussion to go the way you want, then you need to explain why the category is needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Each of us takes the buden he chooses. I understand the biology categories. Believe me when I say that it is enough work for a contributor. Liné1 (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- You could also do that if the categories were in Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero, like most other categories that shouldn't contain files. In fact, I periodically check for exactly that, using a catscan function that's linked on the category page. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Liné1: Could you please explain why you need it badly? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to Categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- That would hardcode the category. Better to remove the old category and add a template such as {{CatCat}}: that template puts a notice on the cat page and adds the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have no idea what coding does Auntof6 speak about. The proposal is merely:
- remove «Category:Categories that should not contain files» and add «Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero» on Biology categories that should contain no files,
- place {{Catredirect}} on Categories that should not contain files.
- Nothing less but nothing more. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'll try to clarify what I was talking about. Here's what I think should be done.
- Delete Category:Categories that should not contain files.
- On each subcategory of Category:Biology categories that should contain no files, replace
[[Category:Biology categories that should contain no files]]with{{CatCat}}. This will add the subcategories to Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero. - Delete Category:Biology categories that should contain no files.
- I do not favor using a redirect to move categories to Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero, because categories should be added to Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero using templates, not by putting it directly on categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'll try to clarify what I was talking about. Here's what I think should be done.
- I have no idea what coding does Auntof6 speak about. The proposal is merely:
- That would hardcode the category. Better to remove the old category and add a template such as {{CatCat}}: that template puts a notice on the cat page and adds the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Let us be clear, only a fan of taxonomy can correct those files. You have to check if the file has a species category. Often, there are 2 species displayed, so the taxonomist has to check which one is displayed. As you can see, there are not many files, because I take the job seriously. By the way, there are other maintenance cat for biology: Category:Commons biology maintenance Liné1 (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- This discussion isn't about correcting files. It's about how to manage the categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Let us be clear, only a fan of taxonomy can correct those files. You have to check if the file has a species category. Often, there are 2 species displayed, so the taxonomist has to check which one is displayed. As you can see, there are not many files, because I take the job seriously. By the way, there are other maintenance cat for biology: Category:Commons biology maintenance Liné1 (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Auntof6's proposal follows standard proceedure for this type of category here at commons. I don't see anything special here that would require an exception. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6, Themightyquill, and Liné1: old discussion. There is Category:Biology categories that should contain no files and Category:Categories requiring diffusion. The category in question can be deleted and this discussion can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not seeing any solid reasoning to keep, I'm prepared to move forward with this. @Auntof6: would you like to undertake step 2 (adding {{Catcat}} to all those subcategories)? After that's done we can delete as proposed. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yes. It looks like I can do that by changing the templates that define these categories. I can both add {{Catcat}} and remove Category:Biology categories that should contain no files. However, please note that at least some of the subcategories, such as Category:Species of Polemoniaceae, have the following in their description: "This category should only contain Species categories and galleries. It should contain no file." I am of the opinion that galleries also do not belong in categories marked with {{Catcat}}. Will there be an objection if I remove the galleries from the subcategories as well? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I would suggest you tag a few with this discussion to get input. I don't see why those galleries should be there, since the already have categories of their own. --- Themightyquill (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I've removed most of them. The ones that are left I think would be OK to have files. I need to get off the computer now, so I'll address that and the issue mentioned above later. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I would suggest you tag a few with this discussion to get input. I don't see why those galleries should be there, since the already have categories of their own. --- Themightyquill (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yes. It looks like I can do that by changing the templates that define these categories. I can both add {{Catcat}} and remove Category:Biology categories that should contain no files. However, please note that at least some of the subcategories, such as Category:Species of Polemoniaceae, have the following in their description: "This category should only contain Species categories and galleries. It should contain no file." I am of the opinion that galleries also do not belong in categories marked with {{Catcat}}. Will there be an objection if I remove the galleries from the subcategories as well? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
To end this CFD I suggest to rename:
- Category:Biology categories that should contain no files --> Category:Categories of biology requiring diffusion. Because we already have "Categories about aviation requiring diffusion" and "Categories of Portugal requiring diffusion". Let the "WikiProject Biology" contributors do what they want with this category. And after that Category:Categories that should not contain files can be deleted or redirected--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: That works for me. -- Themightyquill (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Liné1, Auntof6, and Themightyquill: I will wait one week yet, then I will end this stale CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
What is our convention for category structures like this? This category and all it's subcategories were created to manage a grand total of SIX files! There are more categories than there are files, and most of the lowest-level categories have only one file. IMO, it's not worth creating all these categories for so few files. Auntof6 (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- I live in the area and I plan on expanding this category. Missvain (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Missvain: Would you be opposed to uploading the images first, and then sub-categorizing first to century, and then to decade (when necessary due to the amount of files)? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure when I'll have the images yet. I am working on a larger scale project of organizing both Sonoma and Mendocino Counties on Commons before I proceed to start working on uploads and documentation. If images get moved around for Asti and those categories get deleted, that's fine. Missvain (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Missvain: Yes, I see you've been equally busy with Category:Sonoma by year and Category:Sonoma County by year too. In those category trees as well, would you be willing to sub-categorize first to century, and then to decade when necessary, and then to year if really necessary (due to the amount of files)? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm knee deep in this project right now and almost finished. I'll be getting rid of single file categories when I'm finished. I don't think I'm bothering anyone by working on this focused project, so if it's becoming a burden in the broader Commons, I'm happy to re-evaluate my process if absolutely necessary (I'd hate to backtrack). Right now though, I'm almost done and will start the process of uploading content soon. I'm so happy to have things organized! Again, I'll be dealing with single file categories soon. :) Missvain (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Missvain: Yes, I see you've been equally busy with Category:Sonoma by year and Category:Sonoma County by year too. In those category trees as well, would you be willing to sub-categorize first to century, and then to decade when necessary, and then to year if really necessary (due to the amount of files)? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- I live in the area and I plan on expanding this category. Missvain (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- I note that the many "by year" sub-categories of Category:History of Asti, California have now been deleted, though Category:Sonoma County by year still contains many year sub-categories with 1, 2, and 3 images, as well as sub-categories like Category:Boyes Hot Springs by year which also contains many sub-categories with just one image. I would again suggest merging into Category:Sonomy County by century or by decade if justified by the number of images. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- It looks like this has not been resolved. It seems like this requires a more overarching discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Closed. Category kept. No active discussion for years. "History of (name of city or town)" categories are fairly common. Category currently contains tow subcategories. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Should this be merged with Category:El Callao? Auntof6 (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think it is very confusing. All of the images in the cats of "El Callao" are called "Callao". But there is also a "Callao District" and a "Callao Province" in Peru (though said to be contiguous with Callao (now called El Callao and redirected there on Wikipedia), as well as a El Callao Municipaly in Venezuela, with a town called El Callao (Venezuela).
- See Provinces of Peru with the redirection to El Callao.
- See Callao (disambiguation) if you want to know Wikipedia's position on the matter.
- Very confusing for any user looking for info in the English-speaking world. Kalbbes (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Must merge with Category: El Callao.--Allforrous (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Technically the city of Callao is in the province of Callao, which is in the region of Callao, but they are all completely coterminous. ie. everything in the region is also in the city. The province also has districts, but that means these are effectively districts of the city too, since the city spans multiple districts. I've done my best, creating Category:Callao District and leaving Category:El Callao for the province, but I honestly have no idea how to handle this. "El Callao" doesn't seem to be an official name of anything. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | It looks like the category is a dab page, which I think is the best option. So I'm closing this as resolved. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Category:Contemporary architecture redirects to Category:2000s architecture. Many of these "Contemporary architecture in X" categories are matched by "2000s architecture in X" categories. Are they not redundant? Especially since there seems to be no specific style to "contemporary architecture". I'm open to opinions, but my instinct is to merge into "2000s architecture" Themightyquill (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- We'd have to check everything in it to see if it's 2000s. I just found a 1991 building under a contemporary architecture category. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any of this qualifying as "contemporary" 100 years from now. "21st century architecture", perhaps? Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've done some sorting and deleting, but it's time consuming work. Help would be appreciated. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Done | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Notes | It looks like most of this has already dealt with by Themightyquill. I dealt with the remaining categories though. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||