Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2019/03
Empty as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michoucachou.jpg. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Done: per nom. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
As always, a system of "current" <whatever> is a terrible idea, as it requires heavy (and generally manual) maintenance – for instance, this category as not been update since 2015 – and all the work of the previous update is in pure loss at any new update (since all the current <whatever> are just moved to either a "former <whatever>" or the general <whatever> category). And as always, I would propose two other (better) options:
- the lazy one: get rid of any "current" category, just categorize anyone who hold the position in a general category. Messy as it will contain the current holder and the person who hold it two centuries ago? Maybe, but it's already the case with the penultimate holder in this current/former system.
- the wikiholic one: categorize by term, here by cabinet/government. It's a huge workload, but once done, it's done, and all the categorization is not in pure vain at it will not be simply erased at the next update.
Rhadamante (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- The best option is to delete such cats. IMHO. --E4024 (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- I support not having categories for this kind of "current" anything, because it's too easy for the contents to go out of date. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Done, everything moved to "Government ministers of Denmark" Rhadamante (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This category can be removed: it contains a spellings mistake (i.e. Marxfeldt should be Marxveldt). I created the new (correct) category. Ecritures (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Done: deleted as empty and misspelt. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
useless duplicate of Category:Kath. Filialkirche St. Nikolaus (Güssing) Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ist als ein Ortsteil von Güssing gedacht. Nxr-at (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- sorry, didn't get that. Description was insufficient. CfD withdrawn.
Keep
- sorry, didn't get that. Description was insufficient. CfD withdrawn.
Closed.
Delete/upmerge to avoid "photos of" category tree for all images on commons Themightyquill (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- The category currently contains no files, only some categories that mostly seem consistent with the way other "Photographs of" categories are used. Are you thinking we should get rid of all those cats, too? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I see your point. Nomination withdrawn. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
redundant (seeː Category:2019 Kumbh Mela) Oo91 (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Closing: cat was redirected. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
should be deleted: I created it recently and it is quite unnecessary Levana Taylor (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Closing: category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
category name should be translated to English Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Done--Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The category name is ungrammatical. I suspect the intent is "Uniform belts of Nazi Germany". And it probably needs {{Nazi symbol}}. Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. I probably would have just moved it. Is there any particular reason this needs discussion? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support rename. We should be here anyways according to Commons:Rename a category if it's controversial but it looks like it's settled so we just need an admin to close it and do the rename. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I'll just do the move. @Auntof6: the reason I didn't just move it was that I was uncertain of the creator's intent, thought it might have been "Uniform belts in Nazi Germany" or even something else that I hadn't thought of. - Jmabel ! talk 23:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Apparently an uncontroversial move. Jmabel ! talk 23:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Empty, and likely to stay empty. Photographer requested removal of all images as copyright violation. OTRS ticket:2019030510008504 Ronhjones (Talk) 21:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the empty cat then; even if new images come, the title looks strange and most probably would not be used as such. --E4024 (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
mistakenly opened. Speedy delete please DGtal (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Please delete this category. There are no "Coins of Orontes I Sakavakyats" पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Empty cat was deleted. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete: duplicate of Category:Mömpelgarder Altar, I created it before I found that one (the name wasn't obvious). Sorry. – b_jonas 21:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- @B jonas: You could either tag it with the {{Empty page}} template to get it deleted or redirect it. This kind of issue doesn't usually need discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was not familiar with that procedure. – b_jonas 22:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Close: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Can delete: this ship has now been recategorised and cross referenced correctly Broichmore (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Gökhan Kara is a person, whose given name is Gökhan and surname is Kara. Mistakes made in WD should be solved in WD, not in Commons. Delete this wrong and naturally unnecessary cat. E4024 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Please delete (other category available: Sarpol-e Zahab) पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Close: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
delete, made in error, wrong syntax Broichmore (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:General Goddard (ship, 1782). Broichmore Nex time please use the {{Bad name}} template when there is no need for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Incorrectly named, should be at Category:Joseph F. Dunford, Jr. Gbawden (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Joseph F. Dunford, Jr.. @Gbawden: Next time, please use the {{Bad name}} template. No need for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Copyright problem Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Levitated Mass Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Not done: if the images are deleted, then the category will be empty and will be deleted. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 190.92.64.146 20:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Closed as nonsense. Please do not repeat or you may be blocked. --E4024 (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Empty, all images moved to correct Category:Nature reserve Na Policy Pikador (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Category was already deleted when I got here. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I´m so sorry but "australia" was a mistake - my mistake. Please delete! ....HMS (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be merged with its parent category, Category:Igbo Cultural Heritage? Auntof6 (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Auntof6, thank you so much for your suggestion. Yes it should be merged but I'm still yet to get a hold of it. I mean how to merge categories. Kindly help merge it or put me through on how to in case of next time. Thank you and regards (Tochiprecious) 8:06, 18 March 2019 (WAT)
- Done. All I did was move the four files to the other category. I've tagged this category for deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
It should be deleted, as the painter's works are covered by another category (Pietro Francesco Garoli, correct spelling) WQUlrich (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agree I merged them and redirected one to the other. --Jarekt (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Is this an alternate spelling or just a typo? If it's the latter, there's no need for a redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- According to d:Q18207043 it is just alternative spelling. --Jarekt (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Is this an alternate spelling or just a typo? If it's the latter, there's no need for a redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Jarekt. (Redirected to Category:Pietro Francesco Garoli). - Themightyquill (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Hellooworl 2001:4898:80E8:2:F61D:3030:19CD:B074 00:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I propose deleting this category. Bronx County is coterminous with the New York City borough The Bronx. All of the New York City boroughs are coterminous with their counties, and this is the only one of those counties that has a buildings category. This category contains only a category for schools in the county. That schools category is up for discussion in the CFD linked above. Auntof6 (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- So it's fully redundant with Category:Buildings in the Bronx, New York City? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- As far as I understand, yes. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Support And presumably most of the categories of Category:Bronx County, New York should also be done, Auntof6 you were the author of the category although it was a long time ago (2013) it probably wouldn't be controversial to merge it yourself. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think any merge is needed, just deletion, and I can't do that myself. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I've redirected instead of deleting, so that the "buildings in new york by county" and "schools in new york by county" templates continue to work (kind of). I hope that's okay. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please delet this? I made a typing error. Thank you for your time Lotje (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Bad name}} to get it deleted. @Lotje: This kind of thing doesn't really need discussion, so you can use the bad name template yourself next time. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Closed -- cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Can be deleted: I allocated all the items in this category to the proper category Plantage Clifford Kocqshove Danielle - Wikimedia NL/WGC (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Close -- cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I propose eliminating or redirecting the following categories:
- Category:Schools in Bronx County, New York (borough: The Bronx)
- Category:Schools in Kings County, New York (borough: Brooklyn)
- Category:Schools in New York County, New York (borough: Manhattan)
- Category:Schools in Queens County, New York (borough: Queens)
- Category:Schools in Richmond County, New York (borough: Staten Island)
I propose this because each of these contains only one entry, an entry for schools in the related borough. The counties are coterminous with the New York City boroughs indicated in parentheses, so it seems unnecessary to have these county categories to contain only one entry for the borough.
As for whether to delete or redirect, the only issue I see is that eliminating them would leave no county entry for these in Category:Schools in New York (state) by county. Possible solutions:
- Redirect these to the categories for the related boroughs.
- Delete them and add the borough categories to Category:Schools in New York (state) by county. There is a similar practice with the California city of San Francisco, because San Francisco is both a city and a county.
Auntof6 (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Redirected and added the borough categories to Category:Schools in New York (state) by county. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
This concept is covered better by Category:No longer existent subjects. The category for repurposed buildings doesn't seem to fit under abolishment. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also, none of the subcategories are things that have been abolished. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree in principle. Also, Is Category:Repurposed buildings "No longer existent"? --Benzoyl (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, it's not, because the building still exists. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Someone seems to have emptied the category without waiting for the discussion to complete. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
categorie 55 gjpm verhoef 83.82.48.110 03:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Not done: Nonsense, nothing to discuss. --jdx Re: 21:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
As we deleted already the general carbine cat (here) we should also delete this one. Sanandros (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sanandros: Delete Category:Carbines of the Vietcong and re-cat contents correctly. Josh (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
error. sorry Tyseria (d)(Sorry for my english !) 11:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tyseria: Closed without opposition. Speedy delete Category:Politics of Côte d'Or. Josh (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
ŠJů marked Category:Creeks by country with the move tag for merging with Category:Streams by country, with the reasoning "merge the whole tree as a duplicate". [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/creek Creek is a broad name to describe a creek or narrow river, though Stream is more of a European term regardless, while places like Australia and the US rarely use the term "Stream". Removing "creek" would disrupt some categories of named creeks, since some are not streams but not quite a river. Bidgee (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Added Category:Creeks to this discussion as well. Bidgee (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Bidgee: At this moment, the category Category:Creeks has a description: „Here are streams with word Creek in its name.“ Such specific scope make sense only for English-language countries, and the category name should be not confusing (Category:Streams named "creek"?). However, many of contained files and subcategories don't meet the description. Generally, Universality principle of categorization requieres to have category names universal; identical items should have identical names for all countries and at all levels of categorization. All non-English countries have to be reconciled with universal English terminology even though their national conceptualization can be different – thus also English-language countries should suppress their local language specifics and yield to universal terms, if possible. Naturally, distinctions between various types of watercourses are soft and blurred and can pervade and overlap. --ŠJů (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- This discussion is largely superceded by another one linked above. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Bidgee: At this moment, the category Category:Creeks has a description: „Here are streams with word Creek in its name.“ Such specific scope make sense only for English-language countries, and the category name should be not confusing (Category:Streams named "creek"?). However, many of contained files and subcategories don't meet the description. Generally, Universality principle of categorization requieres to have category names universal; identical items should have identical names for all countries and at all levels of categorization. All non-English countries have to be reconciled with universal English terminology even though their national conceptualization can be different – thus also English-language countries should suppress their local language specifics and yield to universal terms, if possible. Naturally, distinctions between various types of watercourses are soft and blurred and can pervade and overlap. --ŠJů (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bidgee, ŠJů, and Themightyquill: Closed to merge into Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/04/Category:Rivers. Josh (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
For deletion. Check: Category:Association football in Iran in 2019 UnitedPowerstalk 16:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@UnitedPowers: Closed to rename as Category:Association football in Iran in 2019 to fix capitalization. Josh (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Walter Merz (ship, 1993), ship was just renamed. 129.13.72.197 08:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Not a duplicate. The way we deal with ships changing names is by categorising them by IMO number, which doesn't change, and having that as a parent category for both names. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Closed: Keep both categories as subcategories of the ship cat Category:Fassmer Baunummer 1262, per current ship categorization practice. Josh (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Necessary? Unpopulated in a year. E4024 (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: It has been populated it seems. Josh (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Musicians and corporate directors, right. Even Monaco and Liechtenstein have a population. BTW maybe you did not notice but some users make a cat(egorization), leave it with one or two files or subcats -in some cases for a year or two- and only try to fill it when they see that their cat is on CfD. Have a look at Maritime culture. Before they kicked me out from POVpedia I managed to develop many unsourced "skeleton" articles via AfDs. With this I do not mean I use CfDs to develop cats, I open CfDs to "discuss" problematic cats. Sometimes they develop. This one? I'm not sure. If you want to close any one of the CfDs I have opened go ahead. I am not a problem maker. I try to prevent or solve them. Thanks for your interest on my contributions, sincerely. --E4024 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: This discussion is archived. It was closed because the reason for nomination ("Unpopulated in a year.") was resolved. If you have other rationale and wish to re-nominate it, feel free to open a new CfD and explain such reasons. However, please do not continue to comment in this archived discussion. Thanks! Josh (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Musicians and corporate directors, right. Even Monaco and Liechtenstein have a population. BTW maybe you did not notice but some users make a cat(egorization), leave it with one or two files or subcats -in some cases for a year or two- and only try to fill it when they see that their cat is on CfD. Have a look at Maritime culture. Before they kicked me out from POVpedia I managed to develop many unsourced "skeleton" articles via AfDs. With this I do not mean I use CfDs to develop cats, I open CfDs to "discuss" problematic cats. Sometimes they develop. This one? I'm not sure. If you want to close any one of the CfDs I have opened go ahead. I am not a problem maker. I try to prevent or solve them. Thanks for your interest on my contributions, sincerely. --E4024 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed category has been populated. Josh (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Seems redundant to Ice hockey players from Alberta, especially considering all the subcats are players ATM. Moreover most coaches, scouts, &c. have spent part of their careers as players. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Seems not necessary to me. I hope other people do not follow suit with this kind of categorization. --E4024 (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Sportspeople" and therefore "ice hockey people" contains supporters (i.e. fans) and execuitves not just players and coaches. Additionally, most coaches and scouts may have been players at some point, but that doesn't mean that's what they are known for. All that said, if we have no images of ice hockey people from Alberta but players at the moment, AND no "Ice hockey people from (other canadian provinces)" there's no need for this category at the moment. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, @Themightyquill. On your second condition, we do have a hierarchy of people < {coaches, players, supporters} for Canada, just not for any other province. (My negligence not to check that first.) So with that for precedent I would be satisfied with moving the current contents into the players cat, which itself can become a sub-cat of this one—I’m not one of those who object on principle to cats with only one member (and it’s likely the rest will get filled in eventually).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I’ve now moved the players into their subcat, which is now the only member of this one.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479, Themightyquill, and E4024: Closed Merged Category:Ice hockey people from Alberta into Category:Ice hockey players from Alberta. Josh (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Arab soldiers? (Arabic is a language.) The many Spanish soldiers from Ceuta or Melilla will enter this cat? How will we separate if they are Arabs or Berebers or Tuaregs or whatsoever? Maybe "Arabic" word was used because we want to specify they speak this language? I also speak some Arabic... E4024 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as unnecessary and problematic. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Themightyquill: Closed without opposition. Delete Category:Arabic soldiers. Josh (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
There are very few compound names, always informal, for people in Turkish. (With "informal" I mean they are just two given names and not to be taken as José Maria or Maria José in Spanish.) Ali Rana certainly is not one of those few exceptions. These exceptions are Mustafa Kemal (due to Atatürk, national hero), Namık Kemal (nationalist poet), Mehmet Akif (national poet), Hasan Hüseyin (religious, for the sons of Ali), Mehmet Ali (religious, "Turkishized" form of Muhammed Ali) and very few others. "Ali Rana" and many like that are simply "two names".
Let me explain one more thing: The Surname Law was passed by the end of 1934 in Turkey. Therefore before 1935 people did not have a surname. They used their father's name (a given name) as if it were a surname. "As if" means it was "not" a surname. This is why many women of the new Turkey (1920s) carry one female and one male name.
Taking the opportunity, we must make cats for "people without surnames". That is a real need. Thanks. E4024 (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed without opposition. Delete Category:Ali Rana (given name). Josh (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
What does this title mean? I looked for the cat-opener, to ask them, but they have been prohibited from editing Commons any more. E4024 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment I can’t see what would distinguish the contents from those of the main cat. Seeing that the creator was widely perceived to misunderstand the categorization system in other ways (see noticeboard thread), I doubt there’s much point in trying to divine the original rationale. (Based on remarks made in that discussion, my first guess would be that the user considered these images to be superfluous, therefore candidates for deletion.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Odysseus1479: Closed: Upmerge from Category:Kukeldash Madrassah, old types to Category:Kukeldash Madrassah. Josh (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
löschen, ersetzt durch Theodor Fischer, Haus Leonhardstraße 13 Gerd Leibrock (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gerd Leibrock: Closed (no opposition): Merge Category:Leonhardstraße 13 (Stuttgart) into Category:Theodor Fischer, Haus Leonhardstraße 13. Josh (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Unnecessary cat, mother and son of Ibadism. E4024 (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (no opposition): Merge into Category:Ibadism. Josh (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
All subcats with a single hyphen need at least space padding (" - " instead of "-"); pref. dash, or colon, or brackets — or maybe even a full rephrasing of the whole, in each subcat name. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging @Pe-Jo: who bravely created these subcats and populated them. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename all to Category:Hungarian Revolution of 1956 at Street name, Budapest. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: What do you mean, all? Some of these subcats are not about streets. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't notice the others. I support your proposals below. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename all to Category:Hungarian Revolution of 1956 at Street name, Budapest. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, in Category:Hungarian Revolution of 1956 in Budapest are inter alia subcategories:-Human corpses, -Vehicles, -Shelters, .... square and street names. Street names, square names could be able to subcat : Category:Hungarian Revolution of 1956 at Place name, Budapest? and renamed e.g. Category:Hungarian Revolution of 1956 in Budapest - Üllői Avenue to Category:Hungarian Revolution of 1956 at Üllői Avenue, Budapest? Pe-Jo (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with the suggestion for street names. Other subjects could be best dealth with a rephrasing:
- Category:Hungarian Revolution of 1956 in Budapest-tanks → Category:Tanks during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956
- Category:Hungarian Revolution of 1956 in Budapest-trams → Category:Trams affected by Hungarian Revolution of 1956
- Category:Hungarian Revolution of 1956 in Budapest-funerals → Category:Funerals following the Hungarian Revolution of 1956
- etc. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Tuválkin Pe-Jo (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin, Pe-Jo, and Themightyquill: Closed (consensus to change several names per discussion above) Josh (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Can be deleted: I reallocated all the items to the proper category 'Commewijne District' Danielle - Wikimedia NL/WGC (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@DanielleJWiki: Closed (no objection, speedy delete) Josh (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Can be deleted: I allocated both images to their proper categories Danielle - Wikimedia NL/WGC (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@DanielleJWiki: Closed (no objection, speedy delete) Josh (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Can be deleted: I moved the one picture to its proper category Danielle - Wikimedia NL/WGC (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@DanielleJWiki: Closed (no objection, speedy delete) Josh (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Misnamed category (cut-and-paste error originating from File:Gals and Pals (1966).png) should simply be deleted Laddo (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Agree to deletion. Sorry for the cut-and-paste error. I mixed up two of the people in the group.—Paracel63 (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Deleted as an empty category Gbawden (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Laddo, Paracel63, and Gbawden: Closed (no objection, deleted) Josh (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
How do we know that the people here are doing that? Commons is about "images". We have "smiling", "sitting", "running", "walking" etc cats about human behaviour, but "internal monologue? Please note: I saw this at a pic of a small-age girl. Probably she was pondering about Trump's visa waiver to Muslims... E4024 (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Of course, it is impossible to know what the characters in the pictures think only by looking at them. But the goal here is an illustration. That's how people look in a state of inner thoughts. When trying to explain emotional and cognitive states it is very difficult to find images for illustration. That's why I think it's important to make these pictures accessible. I agree that this is not perfect, but to the best of my knowledge there is no better way to describe these situations visually. Chenspec (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is no need "to describe these situations visually". Delete this cat. --E4024 (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. This might be what people look like when they're having an internal monologue, but the only thing they have in common seems to be a neutral expression on their faces. They might be bored, be waiting for something/someone, or even have emptied their mind of all thought. And then there's this one: I don't think lizards have internal monologue. We have to categorize by what is actually visible in an image, and images don't show people's thoughts unless they include a thought bubble. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I suppose one could have a video with audio in an attempt to illustrate internal monologue, but there are only still images of people who may or may not be having internal dialogue. Categorizing them here is more about the viewers interpretation of the image and less about the reality of what is being depicted. Should someone come up with a clever way to actually depict internal monologue, then by all means we can re-open it. Josh (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per discussion. ℯxplicit 06:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
DAB to Category:March (month) while the request at w:Talk:March (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 March 2019 doesn't look like its going to be successful, the bar for primacy is higher here than on WP and its quite likely that this will get images for the activity such as Marching and Prison march. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. I think too many templates rely on March alone and Commons doesn't have to follow English. Category:Marching seems fine on its own to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- There are only six templates that link to Category:March.[1] There do seem to be a lot of pictures of marches/marching in this category. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep with explanatory header and {{Catseealso}} for other destinations. Josh (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. ℯxplicit 06:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Made for one image and looks difficult to grow. Let's delete this cat. E4024 (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Weak delete It looks like this is a w:WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. I don't think it has a clear inclusion criteria. Note that w:Category:Common sense doesn't exist. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)- Delete Subjective. Unless it is literally to be limited to depictions of the words "common sense" on signage, in which case it seems useless. Josh (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. ℯxplicit 07:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Is Category:Scholars and academics by discipline redundant with Category:Scholars by subject ? Themightyquill (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- If the cat opener does not bother to reply, and considering their many cats being discussed here, they should either voluntarily give up opening new cats or be deprived of that faculty. IMHO. (I have several other user names in mind for a probable "cat opening ban", in case we decide to impose one.) --E4024 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Will that same logic apply to people who start CFDs but fail to reply when people ask questions about their nomination? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- (One-time exception:) You are on top of my list of Commons users to avoid talking. I will not make another exception to this decision until you publicly and very clearly apologize for threatening me. Until then do not bother to ask me anything. Now enjoy this privilege and continue to take advantage of the one-way communication situation. Also be informed that I prefer to discuss with other people independently from your wrong attitude towards problematic and problem solver users. Please do not disturb me, Admin, I am too busy. --E4024 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: I very clearly didn't threaten you above. You suggested that certain people should voluntarily give up opening new cats if they won't reply to CFDs. I suggested that, if certain people start CFDs then refuse to discuss them, they might also voluntarily give up opening new CFDs. I did, however, warn you on your talk page to stop bringing accusations of bad user behavior to CFDs. Your proposal above just one more example. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Will that same logic apply to people who start CFDs but fail to reply when people ask questions about their nomination? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I came here because I have my personal doubts about why we have both "scholars" and "academics" cats as they may be the same thing at the end. I asked the question in another CfD, "Why do we not have a Category:Scholars from Italy although we have a Category:Islamic scholars from Italy, and received no reply. Totally and absolutely independently from the current CfD, I have my suspicions that there exist people (can I call them Islamophobic without disturbing anybody, I am not referring to anyone in particular) in the world (no, not here in Commons) trying to impose a different name for everything "Islamic". Soon we will have Islamic refrigerators, Islamic TV, Islamic stewards and stewardesses, Islamic journalists, Islamic engineers, etc. "Islamic terrorists" we already have; if someone shoots the people in a church we call him/her that way, but if someone shoots and kills 50 people in two mosques in New Zealand we do not even call him a "terrorist". (I do, but the most forthcoming media and the US President does not.) No, none of these words is "rant". They are all related to our cat discussions. --E4024 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Link for ease: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Islamic scholars from Italy. 10 days since opening the CfD but not a word until today, although we love to discuss in Commons. --E4024 (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe we should call this Christchurch guy an "Islamic terrorist", as he is a terrorist and killed "Islamic" men, women, and children. (Do you remember, we had an "Islamic children" cat in Commons. I know, I know, no relation; sorry. :) --E4024 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- This seems to have gotten pretty far off of the topic at hand, can we bring it back to the subject of this CfD please? Josh (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Merge: On the matter of the Category:Scholars and academics by discipline being redundant with Category:Scholars by subject, I agree that the latter seems like it is perfectly fine for the job. In this context, 'discipline' merely defines the 'subject' one is studying. I suggest merging both into Category:Scholars by subject. Josh (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
These seem to have been merged. Deleting empty category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate to Category:Anatoly Petrovich Aleksandrov. 129.13.72.197 08:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Done: Category redirect created. --jdx Re: 07:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Regasterios Has moved this category from Category:Halászlé to Category:Fish soup of Hungary. I don't see the point. It's the only type of fish soup of Hungary we have images of. It's linked directly to a wikipedia page about one particular type of soup. It literally translates as "Fisherman's soup" not "Fish soup." I see no benefit, and several downsides, to the move. Themightyquill (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Fish soup of Hungary to Category:Halászlé. "Fish soup of Hungary" is not an accurate English translation of "Halászlé" (not sure there is one really), so it should keep its name. Josh (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
No opposition in nearly two months. Restored to Category:Halászlé. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
This seems like a silly thing to keep track of. It's not like these pictures could *ever* be identified and keeping track of other people's pictures that aren't identified in a particular year would just be a giant sinkhole of categories. Suggest deletion and moving the pictures past the "by year" category into the main Adolf Hitler category. Everything else in the main category could be sorted with the unsorted ones remaining there. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Definite support. We have too many "unidentified" categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Not needed. Abzeronow (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete --Achim (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
More than 60 k photographs in the root of this category, more coming. Too many? Is this practical? Hansmuller (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Speedy close because of the inappropriate reasoning. Besides that, more than 1'000 image transclusions from this category. Thanks, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Olympic Games xxx k photographs in the root of this category, more coming. Too many? Is this practical? You will always have a lot of images in the root of a category, you only need to start high enough. So, this request is pure nonsense, will produce a lot of frustration, so as DerHexer said. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, we adjusted the project template so that files will not be listed in the main category anymore. Does that fit to your expectations? Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Done Issue has been resolved. --MB-one (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Unclear purpose. On wikipedia, en:Egyptian cotton redirects to en:Gossypium barbadense. This category could overlap with Category:Cotton industry in Egypt but it doesn't quite. Themightyquill (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Egyptian cotton (a species of cotton developed in Egypt) is used in textile industry all over the world. Including Japan and other Asian industries. --Ashashyou (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ashashyou: Yes, it's also called "Gossypium barbadense" and we already have a category for that at Category:Gossypium barbadense. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Egyptian Abbasi cotton. --E4024 (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Ok. But the common vernacular name is more famous (check this link, the Latin name isn't even mentioned:https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Egyptian+cotton )( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Egyptian%20cotton ) . The wording Egyptian cotton isn't just a plant species, it implies a specific trade, culture , brand and industry. It is not about the plant (check this link:https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=ssNMAgAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA177&lpg=RA1-PA177&dq=Egyptian+cotton+encyclopedia&source=bl&ots=5Ulf2Z4aXZ&sig=ACfU3U2zLy97GuDHpvSSk_FW8iEvQtLDZQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj01PTonI3hAhXBxYUKHUUyDjIQ6AEwGnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=Egyptian%20cotton%20encyclopedia&f=false ) . Suggest to redirect to the Latin scientific name, same as on Wikipedia. If some is seeking an open source image from commons, naturally he will search by the common famous name. Regards--Ashashyou (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect Category:Egyptian cotton to Category:Gossypium barbadense ? That's fine by me. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Gossypium barbadense. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Is our distinction between Category:Textiles and Category:Fabrics useful? Both link to en:Textile on wikipedia. Wikipedia mentions a very subtle distinction between textiles (which as I understand it, might include carpets or anything else that is finished upon being interwoven) and fabrics (which only in includes textiles that are made for future use in other products, like clothing). I'm not sure it's a useful distinction on commons. Themightyquill (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
No comment in months. Redirected Category:Fabrics to Category:Textiles as broader category. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
empty, redundant category N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 10:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete both Category:2018 in Hong Kong Tramways No. 18 and Category:2019 in Hong Kong Tramways No. 18. Both are empty and should be speedy deletes. Josh (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Tagged as empty to get them deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Close: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Other eyes requested on the location of this roundabout. I maintain it's in Clubmoor because that is where it is shown on Liverpool City Council's Ward maps here and here (it is the southerly of the two in roughly the centre of the maps). Another editor insists it's in Norris Green because "I grew up in Norris Green I know my area! If you want an "edit war" fine. I have no issue here as I am 100% correct." and has proceeded to edit-war her preferred, unsourced, version into the category. I believe we should use reliable sources rather than none, and these ward boundaries have the force of law, being set by the Boundary Commission for England and Wales. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Having found the other user highly difficult and lacking respect, this is where we are. The user has chose to cite the location of the image based on Liverpool city council local ward maps. I agree it is an official source and I agree that the council political/administrative ward that covers the location is the Clubmoor ward. They are facts. The other facts that the contributor has chose to ignore and disrespected informed knowledgeable opinion as per the above quotes are that the location of the area in the image is not based on the council ward mapping. That the ward mapping is arbitrary and overlaps/covers part of the neighbouring district (Norris Green) for which this image discussion is central.
- The ward maps are there for a political and administrative division of Liverpool city council (authority). As discussed with the contributor the ward maps / names are not representative of the districts/neighbourhoods of Liverpool and gave supporting evidence to prove this.
Example 1) Belle Vale ward covers Netherley but they are two separate districts. Example 2) Vauxhall area used to be in its own ward now that ward is defunct and it is now in the Kirkdale ward. This does not mean Vauxhall is part of Kirkdale or renamed Kirkdale. Example 3) Some wards are twin named such as Fairfield and Kensington, or Speke/Garston. With Rodhullandemu's reasoning then those city districts would be named as such but they are not. Example 4) Some wards are not named after the main area they cover such as Greenbank, or Central or Riverside. So Rodhullandemu's logic would mean places and images in those wards should be changed. But those are merely administrative wards they are not districts.
- I have also attempted to challenge the contributors knowledge of the area in question by providing links to some places and shops which concur that the image sits within the Norris Green district. Such as Norris Green Library. But this was dismissed out of hand and quite dismissive and disrespectfully so.
- The contributor ridicules comments from myself as "local gossip" and as above uses the hard line "I believe we should use reliable sources rather than none, and these ward boundaries have the force of law, being set by the Boundary Commission for England and Wales."/
- When I state as above "I grew up in Norris Green", I know the area and would not be disputing this with Rodhullandemu if I had any qualms I was wrong. I am not wrong I am 100% correct that the Broadway area including the roundabouts are in Norris Green. The contributor appears to be adamant that above all, the one thing that overrides everything is the City Council Ward maps. (With this in mind the contributor's dismissive attitude to myself suggested take that up with Liverpool City Council). The point is that the council wards are NOT the districts of the city. They are arbitrary in that respect. As I pointed out they are prone to change just like Parliamentary constituencies do. In addition it was one of a number of images that were in the wrong location including Stanley Park Avenue bridge (was in Clubmoor) which is in Anfield without any question Babydoll9799 (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- "I agree it is an official source and I agree that the council political/administrative ward that covers the location is the Clubmoor ward. They are facts" Thanks for destroying your own argument, and well done. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- If the matter is disputed...as in there are sources that support claims to be within one or the other's boundaries, especially if maybe those boundaries have changed at some point in time, then it is okay to have the category under both Clubmoor and Norris Green, as both may be legitimate paths a user may follow to reach it. An exlanatory note at the top of the category page would help folks understand further. Josh (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu and Babydoll9799: Closed (no consensus that one or the other category is the exclusively correct category, can simply be categorized in both to facilitate both navigational paths.) Josh (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
"Imperial coats of arms of the Ottoman Empire". Search in Google books before reverting me. I have eaten a lot of dust in Ottoman archives. E4024 (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- The initial bold move was yours, to move the category. Please see the first discussion you started. - Ssolbergj (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Ssolbergj: Closed (objections raised; no consensus to move to 'Imperial') Josh (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
This seems to duplicate Grande River (Minas Gerais), although it’s categorized as a tributary of the Paraguay, not the Paraña Paraná. Members of its subcat Dams on the Grande River (Brazil) all seem to be in MG, but there is a different set of dams in the MG river cat. Note also that we have a disambiguation category Grande River including another river in Bahia—I don’t know enough Brazilian geography to resolve the ambiguities with any confidence. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment What is "paraña"? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: I have no idea, some sort of weird diacritic-translocation, or in less pretentious terms a brain-fart. Fixed.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin and Odysseus1479: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Rio Grande (Brazil) into Grande River (Minas Gerais)) Josh (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Unnecessary categorization, IMHO of course. E4024 (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please explain. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: Can you further explain why you think it is unnecessary? Josh (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ehem, Josh, you are obliging me to opine on a subject so complicated as religion or Islamic jurisprudence, as if I were a bearded molla (sorry, now we call them "muslim scholars of Islam" even though some do not have any school diplomas, and we even put them under "writers" cats together with García Marquez and Yashar Kemal :) visiting each and every mosque around my village to diffuse my opinions on a range of issues from cotton agrigulture to brain surgery or even Turkish cuisine... Anyway, I already forgot what I ate at breakfast but I guess I opened this discussion a month-and-a-half ago as a reaction to being imposed on us its only property, a subcat called Category:Students of Ishaq Ibn Rahwayh, a classification that I may have found subjective. IMHO everybody is a student of all the universal civilization into which s/he is born; returning to this categorization, perhaps the qualification could be considered correct for one person in there but probably not the others. I do not like such subjective contributions in Commons. That is my red line. --E4024 (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- If any of the contents in Category:Students of Ishaq Ibn Rahwayh are inappropriate, they should be removed. If all of the content of Category:Students of Ishaq Ibn Rahwayh is removed, it should be deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ehem, Josh, you are obliging me to opine on a subject so complicated as religion or Islamic jurisprudence, as if I were a bearded molla (sorry, now we call them "muslim scholars of Islam" even though some do not have any school diplomas, and we even put them under "writers" cats together with García Marquez and Yashar Kemal :) visiting each and every mosque around my village to diffuse my opinions on a range of issues from cotton agrigulture to brain surgery or even Turkish cuisine... Anyway, I already forgot what I ate at breakfast but I guess I opened this discussion a month-and-a-half ago as a reaction to being imposed on us its only property, a subcat called Category:Students of Ishaq Ibn Rahwayh, a classification that I may have found subjective. IMHO everybody is a student of all the universal civilization into which s/he is born; returning to this categorization, perhaps the qualification could be considered correct for one person in there but probably not the others. I do not like such subjective contributions in Commons. That is my red line. --E4024 (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Themightyquill: Closed (keep for now, if contents are removed, delete as empty) Josh (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I have an impression that this cat was created for (also by?) one artist and can be considered unnecessary and kind of self promotion. E4024 (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:Ecological artCategory:Ecology in art, as an art genre. Josh (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (keep for now under Category:Ecology in art, if content is removed as out of scope later, can be deleted) Josh (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
This should go to "Category:Number 17 on objects" and the others accordingly. Dice are objects. E4024 (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Number 17 on products and similars should merge to "objects". --E4024 (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Concure, lacking any clear distinction between what constitutes a "product" and an "object", there should not be separate categories. An Errant Knight (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose merging dice categories: just because Category:Number 17 on objects exists doesn't mean that Category:Number 17 on dice should not exist. The latter can be a subcategory of the former. There's nothing in Commons:Categories that forbids Category:Number 17 on dice.
- Suggestion: if you want to discuss merging Category:Number 17 on products, please start a separate entry here at CfD, otherwise we're making life difficult for the admins. — hike395 (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with Hike395. I don't see why the dice category needs to be removed or renamed. The problem is the products category which is just a subcategory of the objects category. As of now, products contains objects which contains dice. I don't see the need to differentiate between all objects and products which I assume is objects that are used for sale. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep 'dice' are a sub-set of 'objects', so there is no problem with them being categorized as such. The nominator has not provided any additional reason for such a merge. Josh (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024, An Errant Knight, Hike395, and Ricky81682: Closed (no consensus to upmerge; questions of 'product' vs. 'object' referred to a seperate CfD) Josh (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Ashashyou has opened this cat and also "Category:British Druze Cavalry Regiment". I have my doubts about having two parallel cats. Please note that one of the two files in this cat has horses; those horses may belong to some cavalry troops. E4024 (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- As advised before, before nominating a category that is beyond your knowledge, try to check it.
Kindly check these imperial war museum links: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/11523
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/11524.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/11523
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/11470
--Ashashyou (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- I see your cats in Turkish/Ottoman history pages, one of my areas of interest and formation, and nominate without looking at who opened them, although one may imagine who opens this or that sort of cat. (For example I have made articles and opened cats for many food items.) It is good to read your discussions, one learns things, even though this discussion only showed me that I was right. Delete one of the two cats. --E4024 (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Still you are mixing things. Still you aren't open to others. What does other categories has to do with this categories. Did you open the provided links?? Please comment directly on what you understand from the links. Please do some effort trying to read about the subject even by googling it. Stop harassing others. Wikimedia isn't yours. It's for the ehole world. Start accepting others points of view. Wikipedia should be around a neutral point of view. Please read the links which are not my point of view, its the imperial war museum point of view. Please Google the subject and hopefully try to find anybooks on the subject, just check photos in books. After that, tell me if you think there is a difference or not regarding categories. God bless you. Regards --Ashashyou (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I see your cats in Turkish/Ottoman history pages, one of my areas of interest and formation, and nominate without looking at who opened them, although one may imagine who opens this or that sort of cat. (For example I have made articles and opened cats for many food items.) It is good to read your discussions, one learns things, even though this discussion only showed me that I was right. Delete one of the two cats. --E4024 (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Now I see a great difference: Category:British Druze Cavalry Regiment is not only under Category:Druze -like this cat- but it is also under Category:Arabic soldiers. Therefore I understand those Druze soldiers either spoke Arabic, while these did not, or perhaps because in the cavalry they used Arab horses... There is a sophistication about the categorization system that I cannot understand. Maybe the cavalry was a unit of this Regiment? Then why do we have a pic with horses (and camels) in this cat? I'm simply lost. --E4024 (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Still you didn't answer my questions directly and taking the discussion into more arguments. Did you check the links or tried to Google the subject?--Ashashyou (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge into Category:British Druze Cavalry Regiment. All images appear to depict the same military unit, which is referred to with the name "British Druze Cavalry Regiment" It appears that "British Druze Regiment", "Druze Regiment", and "British Druze Cavalry and Camel Regiment" were used in some documents at times to refer to this same unit. It is not clear if this indicates the official name changing over time, or if it is just shorthand or misinterpretation on the part of the authors. None-the-less, since it is almost certainly a singular military unit that is being referred to, and not two distinct and separate units, the categories should be merged. It should also be correctly categorized under the British military tree, as it is clearly a British unit. Josh (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Josh, we needed someone to cut the cake in this neighbourhood. You can close this discussion. --E4024 (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ashashyou and E4024: Closed (same entity so merge Category:British Druze Regiment into Category:British Druze Cavalry Regiment) Josh (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
fichier est en fait sous copyright) Les Bergers des Pierres - Moselle Association (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Les Bergers des Pierres - Moselle Association: Closed (keep for now, can be deleted if contents are deleted/removed) Josh (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
This category can be deleted, it is replaced by a category containging the correct name of the altar piece (Category:Pfarrkirche Mariä Himmelfahrt (Hallstatt) - Knappenaltar) Uoaei1 (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Uoaei1: Closed (no objections; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
How is this different from its parent, Category:Fans (ventilation)? If there is a difference, one if them should be renamed. Auntof6 (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I cannot see the difference nor the relation between the cats. I also have my suspicions about Category:Fans (mechanical); maybe it sounds prejudice but cats with parentheses in their name "me dan mala espina" (sorry, my Spanish is "less bad" than my English). --E4024 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a difference. Category:Ventilation fans is the better name. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6, Arbitrarily0, and E4024: Closed (merge Category:Fans (ventilation) into Category:Ventilation fans) Josh (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
error. sorry Tyseria (d)(Sorry for my english !) 18:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tyseria: Closed (created in error) Josh (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I can understand this for "hanukiah", but it also has a strange "Jewish food" subcat, where we find from cereals sold in any market to canned drinks. They are not "Jewish items". I opened the discussion here but take the opportunity to re-categorize or discuss Jewish food, Jewish cuisine, "Judaism and food" et al related cats. E4024 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (no proposals or discussion after several months) Josh (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Not necessary for just one file. Please also have a look at all the cats to which this has been attached, including "Category:Religion". E4024 (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (no objection; upmerge Category:The verse of purification) Josh (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Diese Kategorie ist doppelt und jünger als St. Karl (Lucerne). Sollte in St. Karl (Lucerne) gehen? Hiddenhauser (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Hiddenhauser: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Sankt Karl Luzern into Category:St. Karl (Lucerne)) Josh (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Herero and Namaqua Genocide to match common usage and wikidata links Themightyquill (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; rename Category:Herero and Namaqua Revolt to Category:Herero and Namaqua Genocide) Josh (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
"Category:Egypt statuette of a woman grinding grain in Boston". No comment. E4024 (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Would you please comment it instead if acting that arrogant? Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- (Arrogant acts, I can find several for you in the archives.) The name is not proper English. Let us leave it to a native speaker. User:Auntof6, would you volunteer to kindly move this to a better name? Danke schoen. --E4024 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Marcus Cyron: Closed (no discussion or proposal in months; use a new CfD for new proposals or comments) Josh (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
"Ancient Beer" is not a brand I suppose. I believe this cat should be... renamed. E4024 (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (no objections; move Category:Ancient Beer industry to Category:Ancient beer industry) Josh (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Boat-shaped objects ? That seems to be the purpose. Themightyquill (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; move Category:Boat shapes to Category:Boat-shaped objects) Josh (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
No other country has so detailed Post WWII fireams category. I doubt this is usefull as we don't have so much rifles comming from Armenia. Sanandros (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- We also have "Category:Post-World War II firearms of the Armenian Republic". As I have said before, we should prohibit IPs to open cats. --E4024 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- But also that one is not a good cat. Republic of Armenia exists since the 1990es and we don't have similar cats for the US.--Sanandros (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Sanandros: Closed (subsumed into broader discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Post-World War II weapons) Josh (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
For 5 firearms we don't need so detailed cat. Sanandros (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with you but we have seen two cats being opened for one file only, and when I propose to delete they find supporters for that sort of cats... Whatever, I agree and support deletion of this cat. --E4024 (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed with deletion. Josh (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Sanandros and E4024: Closed (subsumed into broader discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Post-World War II weapons) Josh (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Now the IP begins to do this post ww2 cats also with turkey.- Sanandros (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- See Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Post-World War II firearms of Armenia.--Sanandros (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all those cats; a serial by some IP. I already got deleted two nonsense cats. --E4024 (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, delete all 'post-WWII weapons' categories. Josh (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Sanandros and E4024: Closed (subsumed into broader discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Post-World War II weapons) Josh (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there a duplication with Category:Ramanathapuram mandai manthai? Who knows about Indian dog breeds? E4024 (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- E4024 This seems to have skipped my attention. I was trying to sort out images of dogs, and I created the first category to host this image, which was otherwise in a dead category and the broader category "Mammals of India". If these 2 categories are about the same thing, then I would welcome a merger. Leo1pard (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then merge them please. --E4024 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Have a look: Commons:Deletion requests/File:RAMANATHAPURAM SAMBAL INDIAN DOG BREED.jpg. --E4024 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- E4024 Much to my surprise, I noticed that this discussion wasn't closed yet. Considering that the name "Ramanathapuram Mandai Sambal Manthai Indian dog" seems to be popular, and searching "Ramanathapuram mandai manthai" leads to the question "Did you mean: Ramanathapuram mandai mandai?" would you mind if I redirect Category:Ramanathapuram mandai manthai to Category:Ramanathapuram Mandai Sambal Manthai Indian dog, and thus transfer the files in the former to the latter? Leo1pard (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Leo1pard and E4024: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Ramanathapuram mandai manthai into Category:Ramanathapuram Mandai Sambal Manthai Indian dog) Josh (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest that Kita-Rias Line and Minami-Rias Line be merged into a new category, let's say, Sanriku Railway Rias Line. Yasu (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Yasu: I agree. How about Category:Stations of Sanriku Railway Kita-Rias Line and Category:Stations of Sanriku Railway Minami-Rias Line?--そらみみ (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Most reasonable solution I think is that each station categories be put into Stations of Sanriku Railway, as North- and South-Rias Lines don't exist anymore. [[User:|Yasu]] (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- OK. So I think it's time to merge Category:Stations of Sanriku Railway Kita-Rias Line and Category:Stations of Sanriku Railway Minami-Rias Line into Stations of Sanriku Railway, and create Sanriku Railway Rias Line if there is no opposition.--そらみみ (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Done.--そらみみ (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- OK. So I think it's time to merge Category:Stations of Sanriku Railway Kita-Rias Line and Category:Stations of Sanriku Railway Minami-Rias Line into Stations of Sanriku Railway, and create Sanriku Railway Rias Line if there is no opposition.--そらみみ (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Most reasonable solution I think is that each station categories be put into Stations of Sanriku Railway, as North- and South-Rias Lines don't exist anymore. [[User:|Yasu]] (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Yasu: I agree. How about Category:Stations of Sanriku Railway Kita-Rias Line and Category:Stations of Sanriku Railway Minami-Rias Line?--そらみみ (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@そらみみ and Yasu: Closed (actions done by そらみみ (talk · contribs) without fully closing the discussion) Josh (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- @そらみみ: When closing a CfD, please make sure to follow the process listed at Commons:Categories for discussion#Closing a discussion. Thanks! Josh (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Would propose to move content and subcategories to Category:Icelandic horses by location. Do not see the need for another category below the mentioned one... Fallen Sheep (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. There's no "Animals in other countries" category tree for this to join. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Fallen Sheep and Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; upmerge Category:Icelandic horses in other countries to Category:Icelandic horses by location) Josh (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
made by mistake, similar to existing Category:Transport of bicycles by rail Tukka (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think a redirect makes sense. I wouldn't think to look for "Transport of bicycles by rail" - Themightyquill (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill and Tukka: Closed (redirect Category:Bicycles on trains to Category:Transport of bicycles by rail) Josh (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I have a difficulty in understanding this categorization with its subcat, parents, ethnicity/Britain cats (which seem duplicated to me) all or most made by one user. E4024 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems to me that Category:British people of Asian descent should be moved up to the parent categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- And what about having Category:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom and Category:British people by ethnic or national origin at the same time? Common(s) people (like a servant) gets confused how to categorize with so many "subtleties". (Or "whatever" it is called.) --E4024 (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I propose deletion. It's a UK specific term used in their census, but despite its name, it strictly refers to South Asians. I would add Category:British Bangladeshi which is redundant with either Category:Bangladeshi diaspora in the United Kingdom or Category:British people of Bangladeshi descent. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@E4024, Auntof6, and Themightyquill: Closed (this category was emptied at some point, so make it a redirect to Category:British people of Asian descent) Josh (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I've created this category to house all the similarly named sub-categories. But personally, I'd rather see these broken down into century than an ambigious "post-war" scheme. The same applies to all the "post-world war ii military vehicles" and "armored fighting vehicles" categories that were created as parents. It also applies to Category:Post-World War II weapons. Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete including other 'post-WWII' categories. Vehicles can be categorized by year or decade based on year introduced, built, or depicted, but 'post-war' is ambiguous. Josh (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Closed (subsumed into the broader discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Post-World War II weapons) Josh (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Syros-Ermoupoli is an administrative entity, not a placename, so this cat has no clear scope. Phso2 (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. This category and also others among the subcategories of Category:Syros-Ermoupoli should be deleted. "Municipality of Syros-Ermoupoli" is an administrative entity which can change any time, while the island, Syros, will not change. If we want to keep this (and the other categories), they must be empty, containing only subcategories such as Category:Views of Syros, Category:Views of Gyaros. --FocalPoint (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Phso2 and FocalPoint: Closed (empty category; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
This category contains only a few number of photos from a part of it.wiki users participating in it:Progetto Milano. It excludes a large number of good images coming from both Italian and users of other languages. It should be only a redirect to Category:WikiProject Milan. CansAndBrahms (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- This category was created by a users of the it:Progetto Milano in order to exclude the contributions of other users.
- It would be much better, that also it.wiki would use the quality valued images for its milanese articles, without caring on who was the author of the image.--89.204.137.71 15:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@CansAndBrahms: Closed (no objections; redirect Category:Progetto Milano to Category:WikiProject Milan) Josh (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Was this Championship organized only in 2007 and 2009? It looks strange to me to have only 3 pics from a recurring world championship... E4024 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps you hurried a little bit too much this time, E4024! The cat is taking shape. Be patient please. --E4024 (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am still categorising the images in this category. I think it is a necessary category, because SSP World Championship is still active. There are more than 3 pics by now. Regards.--Montesita (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Montesita: Closed (category is growing, seems valid as-is) Josh (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Move this back to Category:Sebils in Egypt please; just like when it was opened and parallel to similar cats. E4024 (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (no objections; move Category:Sabils in Egypt to Category:Sebils in Egypt) Josh (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
How do you find this cat's title? E4024 (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Google with its translation shows 'National Library and Archives (Egypt)' which may be good rename here Hmains (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- What are we going to do with Category:National Library and Archives of Egypt, dear colleague? There is some subtle something here that at least I cannot comprehend. --E4024 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not reading Arabic I don't know. Maybe it is the Book House. Each of the images of the three books indicate it is from the collection of "National Library and Archives of Egypt." Translators welcome. Hmains (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- What are we going to do with Category:National Library and Archives of Egypt, dear colleague? There is some subtle something here that at least I cannot comprehend. --E4024 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Hmains: Closed (no objections; upmerge Category:الكتبخانة الخديوية بمصر into Category:National Library and Archives of Egypt) Josh (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Redirect Category:Owen Meredith to Category:Robert Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Earl of Lytton and put a comment a category description to indicate the pseudonym. Then delete Category:Works by Owen Meredith, Category:Literary works by Owen Meredith, and Category:Works by creator pseudonym and unecessary. Themightyquill (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; redirect Category:Owen Meredith to Category:Robert Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Earl of Lytton; delete Category:Works by Owen Meredith, Category:Literary works by Owen Meredith, and Category:Works by creator pseudonym) Josh (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
What's an art object? Themightyquill (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Apparently, it's mostly silver objects in Argentina. (Silver... argent... nah, that can't be the reason.) But the content here should be recategorized under art works. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I could see a case for paintbrushes or canvas being 'art objects' that are not 'art works', but clearly this is not what this cat is being used for, so I support the merge at this point. Josh (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill and Auntof6: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Art objects into Category:Art works) Josh (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I propose renaming this category to Category:1948 Lake Mead Boeing B-29 crash (or similar). It's very unlikely there will be further B-29s submerged in Lake Mead, so these images are really documenting that particular event. BMacZero (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment If, as you say, there is very little chance of a second instance, then why does it need disambiguating? But really, I have no objection. —howcheng {chat} 16:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Since all of the images are actually of the aircraft in a submerged state, long after the crash, I actually think the original name might be the more accurate. Josh (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@BMacZero and Howcheng: Closed (stale discussion, no consensus to change) Josh (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The main parent category is Category:Military of the United States. Should this category be renamed Category:Military of the United States by year? Senator2029 23:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Category:United States Armed Forces also redirects to Category:Military of the United States. The same move should apply to Category:Commands of the United States armed forces, Category:Featured pictures from the United States Armed Forces, Category:Historical medals of the United States Armed Forces, Category:Opposing forces of the United States Armed Forces, Category:United States Armed Forces recruitment, Category:United States armed forces abroad and all their relevant subcategories. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Some yes, some no. "Military of the United States" and "United States Armed Forces" are not 100% equivalent. For general military history, I could see moving to "Military of the United States by year" but for things specific to the United States Armed Forces specifically, I would keep that wording. Note that Military of the United States includes several topics that may not be exclusive to the United States Armed Forces, such as military equipment which may only be exported or military organizations that are not part of the Armed Forces to name a couple. Josh (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I see your point. Plenty of other countries also have both "Military of X" and "X Armed Forces". But should we then recreate Category:United States Armed Forces as a sub-category of Category:Military of the United States ? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yes, I think you are right, that would be the way to do it, and then the nom Category:United States Armed Forces by year can go under that. Josh (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I see your point. Plenty of other countries also have both "Military of X" and "X Armed Forces". But should we then recreate Category:United States Armed Forces as a sub-category of Category:Military of the United States ? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Some yes, some no. "Military of the United States" and "United States Armed Forces" are not 100% equivalent. For general military history, I could see moving to "Military of the United States by year" but for things specific to the United States Armed Forces specifically, I would keep that wording. Note that Military of the United States includes several topics that may not be exclusive to the United States Armed Forces, such as military equipment which may only be exported or military organizations that are not part of the Armed Forces to name a couple. Josh (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Category:United States Armed Forces also redirects to Category:Military of the United States. The same move should apply to Category:Commands of the United States armed forces, Category:Featured pictures from the United States Armed Forces, Category:Historical medals of the United States Armed Forces, Category:Opposing forces of the United States Armed Forces, Category:United States Armed Forces recruitment, Category:United States armed forces abroad and all their relevant subcategories. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Regarding Category:Featured pictures from the United States Armed Forces, I can’t really remember why I picked that name − I assume I modeled it from other existing categories. I’m fine with either naming. Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would keep the name Category:Featured pictures from the United States Armed Forces, as it indicates that these images are from official United States Armed Forces sources. Josh (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Senator2029, Themightyquill, and Jean-Frédéric: Closed (keep Category:Military of the United States parent with sub Category:United States Armed Forces specific to items related to the official organization of the US Armed Forces; sort and name subs accordingly with general American military topics as "military of the United States" and organization-specific ones using the name of that organization: (United States Armed Forces") Josh (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
die meisten Fotos betreffen den 'Ponce Monolith' eine Category fehlt jedoch ArnoldBetten (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@ArnoldBetten: Closed (no objections; photos of a different monolith can be moved to the appropriate category, create one if needed) Josh (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Redundant with Category:Alfraganus ? Themightyquill (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Both cats opened by one user, who, IMHO, should refrain from opening cats, frankly. If there is something subtle that I miss I'm all ears to listen and learn. --E4024 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- When we have "one" cat for this outstanding intellectual, please make it a subcat of Category:Fergana. Both Category:Fergana and Ferganî deserve it more than a blondie walking on the street. --E4024 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
@Themightyquill and E4024: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Muḥammad al-Farghānī into Category:Alfraganus) Josh (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate to Category:Dagmar Möller. 129.13.72.197 09:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Closed (no objections; merge Category:Dagmar Sterky into Category:Dagmar Möller) Josh (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Redundant with Category:Katip Çelebi ? Themightyquill (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Haji Khalifa into Category:Katip Çelebi) Josh (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Redundant with Category:Moaz al-Khatib ? Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- One is the person, and the other is the writings of the person, but not seeing a reason they can't be merged. Josh (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Mouaz al-Khatib into Category:Moaz al-Khatib) Josh (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Scholars of Islam so its clear to everyone what we're talking about (not just muslims who are scholars) Themightyquill (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree--Pierpao.lo (listening) 18:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please see also and consider Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Islamic theologians, if you like to. There is a "crowd" of Islamic categorization in Commons: Clothing, politics, religion, scholars and so-called scholars, etc. I have difficulty in reaching at the art, culture, civilization, literature whatever you call of the good deeds/works of Islam, trying to walk in such a crowded avenue (one which is full of out-of-scope people and their unnecessary images/cats). --E4024 (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, and I would also consider it up the Category:Scholars tree. Adopting a standard "Scholars of area of study" format makes sense. Are Category:Legal scholars scholars who study within the bounds of legality, or are they Category:Scholars of law? Admitedly less prone to confusion than the nominated category, but the same principle holds. I also noticed Category:Scholars in Eastern Orthodoxy, which could be taken to be about Eastern Orthodoxy's take on scholars, so probably better as Category:Scholars of Eastern Orthodoxy. Josh (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill, Pierpao, and E4024: Closed (no objections; move Category:Islamic scholars to Category:Scholars of Islam) Josh (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Most subcats have only one image. It's difficult to take stock of the images when you have to visit all the subcategories. Users usually don't care about exactly which year the image was taken, so the cat is not so meaningful. Some images can be placed in subcategories arranged according to their content, like Amin al-Husseini in Germany. Jonund (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Categorization by year is indeed useful to showing a subject over time. You can also add the images to other categories, for example Category:Amin al-Husseini at events for images showing him attending events, of Category:Portraits of Amin al-Husseini for those looking for that sot of image. Josh (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jonund: Closed (no consensus to delete well populated category so keep for now) Josh (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Meaningless cat. AFAIK the word "chador" is only used for a black clothing. In case there are exceptions, they are "exceptions". BTW chador is not written "Chador", normally. E4024 (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Black chador. Chador is not clothing in general, but a specific sub-set of clothing, so it is warranted to have a category of media to depict it. Josh (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: What do you think of my suggestion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:Colorful Chador? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Themightyquill: Closed (category already deleted) Josh (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Should be "Photographs of the Union flag in England"; parent category is "Photographs of the Union flag in the United Kingdom" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk · contribs) took it upon themselves to make the move immediately without waiting for the CfD to be closed (or even comments to be made). I noticed that Category:Union flag has been renamed Category:Union Jack, so shouldn't this category be renamed Category:Photographs of the Union Jack in England now? Josh (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Closed (subsumed into broader discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Union Jack) Josh (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
We do not make cats ending in "by languages". I insist: Prohibit making cats to IPs, or find out who this one from China is (has made many problematic edits) and block their IP range. E4024 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- We use "by language", "by country" etc. Am I wrong? --E4024 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- This category was emptied prior to closing this discussion, so I have restored it for now. It can be emptied if consensus is to do so upon closing this CfD. Josh (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: We make language-specific categories, so of course if such categories exist, it makes perfect sense for a meta-cat "by language" to hold them. So long as Category:Arabic-language feminine given names exists, it belongs in Category:Feminine given names by language (which the nominated category should be renamed to). That said, I don't see value in gendering names, so in my opinion, we should conclude the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/08/Category:Male names before worrying too much about a sub-cat like the nominated one. Josh (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I worked hard today, am tired, and have a difficulty in understanding you. What is the issue? Use "feminine and masculine" "instead of "female and male"? If that is the case, it exactly is the situation in my mother tongue, Turkish. We have many "masculine" names like Fikret, Şevket, Ufuk, Ayhan, etc which are (also) used by women. "Han" means "khan" - strange for a woman but there are many. A more strange case is the name Beyhan (a combination of "Bey", a noble man, and "khan" his king or prince) - and almost exlusively given to female babies! Am I not understanding anything? Tomorrow inshallah. --E4024 (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This category is needed to group potentially numerous language-specific cats. What is the issue, exactly? Laddo (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- One of the issues is we use the term "by language" and not "by languages" as I said at the opening sentence. The rest is beyond my intellectual capacity. --E4024 (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Would it be OK to simply create Category:Female names by language and recategorize ? Laddo (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't do anything now. It is a question of "moving" when the discussion is over. No need for "making" a cat. Merci. --E4024 (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Laddo: Closed (stale discussion; no consensus to change; keep for now) Josh (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
IMHO meaningless wrong categorization and title. At first I thought the cat-opener was confused by the name of this file. Later I saw EN:WP has an article about "Sixteen Turkish States" (concept) but under a "Great Empires" title. My experience in EN:WP -which ended in expulsion- showed me that for certain users of that platform "Turk-bashing" has no limits. Rules of WP may be forgotten, ignored, changed or simply violated when it comes to using WP for their own anti-whatever (nations, countries, religions etc) POVs. Therefore I can understand how they left apart the sourced and commonly used "16 Türk Devleti" - "Sixteen Turkish States" and invented this "Great Empires" thingy, using the "also known as" formula without any reliable sources. This is about the title. I. e. We must change it. About contents: Shall we place under Turkey all those states, with all their files? Probably not necessary but if anyone goes to look at the EN:WP text, "Turkey" is also listed as one of the "16 Great Turkish Empires". (Thanks guys. :) The problem is, the list lists 17 states! (Well WP is not a reliable source.) Lastly, none of my words here are directed at our colleague who opened the cat or anyone else who contributed to it. I am only opening to discussion the cat itself. E4024 (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Subtracting your rant, you appear to propose to rename the category to "Sixteen Turkish States"?
- This topic is of very marginal notability. But it makes sense to keep these fictional flags in a separate category, because people kept mixing them in with historical flags. Idk what the most common name is, you tell us.
- Google books suggests that for English usage, "16 Great Turkic Empires" (158 hits) is more common than either "16 Great Turkish Empires" (65 hits) or "16 Turkic Empires" (25 hits) or "16 Turkish Empires" (51 hits).
- --Dbachmann (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Rant: Woaw, I'm being accused of saying "silly things". One person less to talk to in Commons. Good-bye. --E4024 (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Flags of the 16 Great Turkic Empires. This cat is composed of flag images and under Category:Symbols of Turkey. Josh (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Dbachmann: Closed (rename Category:Sixteen Great Turkish Empires to Category:Flags of the 16 Great Turkic Empires) Josh (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
This breaks the "by country" cats. No need as there are two independent, sovereign countries. If there is a bridge between both it should be in both national cats. Delete this one. E4024 (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- There are many other categories for Korea. I would support keeping them only for historical use, and possibly for things that aren't specific to either North or South Korea. In addition, Category:Korea and other Korea categories could be recategorized as a region instead of a country. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- We have the same problem with Ireland. I've added a link above. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed on the larger issue (as with Ireland) but in the case of this particular category, there is no need for a pan-Korean category, as all bridges currently are sorted into North and South categories. We can this one a dab without getting into the bigger mess. Josh (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- We have the same problem with Ireland. I've added a link above. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Bus transport in the province of Málaga and discuss it here. E4024 (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is the content when the category was deleted:
- Category:JT Curses/Bus transport in the province of Málaga
- Missing to create subcategory for bus stops and buses. The intention was also to create a category for the province of Cádiz (regarding Andalusia), if there was enough content, and to complete the different provinces of Spain with sufficient content (Category:Bus transport in the province of Barcelona).
- Sorry, I do not speak English and this is a Google translation.--JT Curses (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- They have also been erased in the same way (first emptied, then erased with {{Speedydelete}}):
- In no case there was a previous contact before emptying and erase the category and I found out when I was ready to continue the work. When I asked why, the only answer to erase these and other categories was: unnecessary category, but without any argument.--JT Curses (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Personally I cannot see the problem with this cat which can be kept, maintained and developed. Having said that, it would be better, IMHO, for the users from around the region to solve their differences of view here in CfD pages. --E4024 (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Simply, emptying first, and then using {{Speedydelete}} instead of {{Delete}} in a systematic way, is a fait accompli action, avoiding all debate. When I contact, I get vague generalities as a response, so it does not make sense for me to follow the debate. I do not intend to start a debate here so that they give me the right or not. Simply, I have put the information of the facts at the disposal of whoever is interested, that each one that draws the conclusions that it deems convenient and if it is of any use to define an orientation or policies in Commons, well, if not, also.--JT Curses (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Jtcurses: Closed (no need to delete, appropriate items can be restored to the category, sort if necessary) Josh (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
If I am not wrong we do not make cat titles comprising of a "sentence". E4024 (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Ilham Aliyev receiving credentials of incoming U.S. ambassador ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024 and Themightyquill: Category:Ilham Aliyev receiving the credentials of Lee Litzenberger would seem more precise to use the name of both people, any objections? Josh (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Great point. That's fine by me. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024 and Themightyquill: Category:Ilham Aliyev receiving the credentials of Lee Litzenberger would seem more precise to use the name of both people, any objections? Josh (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; move Category:Ilham Aliyev received credentials of incoming U.S. ambassador to Category:Ilham Aliyev receiving the credentials of Lee Litzenberger) Josh (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Another "Israel-only" cat with a wrong title. E4024 (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: Upmerge into Category:Sociologists by country? Josh (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (no need for a single-subject index category; upmerge) Josh (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Who will decide what is "important"? E4024 (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Qu'ran Verses. 'Important' is subjective per user. Josh (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Done: Upmerged to Category:Qur'an Verses. --ƏXPLICIT 03:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Tanzania was created through the merger of Tanganyika and Zanzibar in 1964. Category:1953 in Tanzania, Category:1959 in Tanzania, Category:1960 in Tanzania, Category:1961 in Tanzania, Category:1963 in Tanzania are therefore invalid category names. Themightyquill (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- So they should be split into Tanganyika and Zanzibar categories if possible and years in Africa otherwise? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree they could be split into these former countries, but I would keep the Tanzania categories prior of 1964 as history of the present-day Tanzania. --Estormiz (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe Category:1963 in Tanzania could be a disambiguation category pointing to 1963 in Tanganyika and 1963 in Zanzibar, and similarly with the other categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I did not find any images in these categories of Zanzibar, so it seems a moot point at this time to worry about disambiguation. That can be created when sufficient images exist to make it worth doing. Josh (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I think the existing Category:Tanganyika in the 1950s + Category:1953 in Africa / Category:1959 in Africa was sufficient for the limited content we had, but Category:Tanganyika by year if necessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Rename all nominated "Year in Tanzania" categories to "Year in Tanganyika" and categorize under Category:Tanganyika by year. Josh (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- More precisely:
- up to 1884: "Year in Africa" and "Year in Zanzibar"
- 1885-1919: "Year in German East Africa" and "Year in Zanzibar"
- 1920-1963: "Year in Tanganyika" and "Year in Zanzibar"
- 1964-present: "Year in Tanzania"
@Themightyquill, Ricky81682, Estormiz, and Auntof6: Any objections to a rename in accordance with the above list? Josh (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- No objections from me. I always wonder if we'd be better off just using the current locations but if we're going to use the ones at the time, let's be complete about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- No objection from me. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Most of the "year by country" -categories have been named after the current borders, which I think is the easiest way. I would keep Tanzania the same way. It would be good though to add a notification in the Tanzaniayear template that there was no such country prior 1964. Estormiz (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- But most current country borders weren't made up of two previously existing countries. If we had Category:1960 in Tanzania, it should surely be sub-categorized into Category:1960 in Tanganyika and Category:1960 in Zanzibar anyway, so we'd just be adding another layer. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- It is true that countries tend to break up rather than merge like in this case. I do not object the change. Estormiz (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- But most current country borders weren't made up of two previously existing countries. If we had Category:1960 in Tanzania, it should surely be sub-categorized into Category:1960 in Tanganyika and Category:1960 in Zanzibar anyway, so we'd just be adding another layer. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:1953 in Tanganyika and so forth Themightyquill (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I know that England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are referred to as "constituent countries" of the UK, but for our purposes we don't refer to them as countries. I think having this category and the others that use the term countries this way is confusing and inconsistent, and they should be renamed, or maybe even deleted. Auntof6 (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, you may consider starting this debate here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom -Ssolbergj (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, I am only addressing the issue here on Commons. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Do you have an alternative proposal Auntof6? I see where you're coming from, but I can't imagine a solution. There should surely be some category to link them together. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe first-level subdivision (although I suppose that could include tye overseas territories), or constituent country. en:Countries of the United Kingdom mentions terms that are used in some specific contexts, including region, area, part, component part, and (mentioned only for your amusement) describing things as related to either Scotland or "rest of the UK". I am mainly concerned that if we leave these category names, categories for the four parts will start appearing under "by country" categories, which I don't think we want. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom? Maybe that could work... - Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe first-level subdivision (although I suppose that could include tye overseas territories), or constituent country. en:Countries of the United Kingdom mentions terms that are used in some specific contexts, including region, area, part, component part, and (mentioned only for your amusement) describing things as related to either Scotland or "rest of the UK". I am mainly concerned that if we leave these category names, categories for the four parts will start appearing under "by country" categories, which I don't think we want. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Do you have an alternative proposal Auntof6? I see where you're coming from, but I can't imagine a solution. There should surely be some category to link them together. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, I am only addressing the issue here on Commons. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I'd point out at w:Talk:England/Country, w:Talk:Scotland/FAQ, w:Talk:Wales that they are classified as countries however with Northern Ireland that's less clear. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
There seems to have a consensus to rename this category to something unambiguous. "Constituent country" is deemed to be the more appropiate term for the four primary administrative division of the UK. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
There is already Category:Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. The term "Soviet Russia" is just a synonym for the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. I presume User:Niklitov wants to distinguish it from its successor, a republic within the Soviet Union (in accordance with the Russian Wikipedia's article Российская Социалистическая Федеративная Советская Республика (1917—1922), "Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (1917–1922)" in English).
However, the current title isn't suitable for this job. It's too confusing and misleading people. I suggest to rename this category to Category:Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1922) (a similar name would be fine too). The same applies to its numerous subcategories.
UPD: After a closer look, some categories are really redundant. For example, Category:Soviet Russia by decade, Category:Soviet Russia by year. Now I tend to think it's better to merge it to Category:Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic rather than to create Category:Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1922) or Category:Soviet Russia (1917–1922), etc.--Russian Rocky (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support, I suggest while to put a redirect. Maybe when there are more files, it’s better to create the Category:Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1922). — Niklitov (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Category:Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1922), as that was not the name it went by during that period (it was the "Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic") Josh (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Russian Rocky and Niklitov: Rename Category:Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic. The state was first named the "Russian Soviet Republic" but was quickly renamed the "Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic" and carried this name from 1918 through 1922, when it became the "Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic". This category should be for images relating to the period (1917-1922) as a sovereign state prior to the USSR. Josh (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with your suggestion. Indeed, Category:Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic sounds better.--Russian Rocky (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Apparently no opposition, if you want to make this change. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
@Russian Rocky, Niklitov, and Themightyquill: Closed (Rename Category:Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic) Josh (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The category description here says its for specific statues. Should this category also contain categories for statues of specific people (e.g. Category:Equestrian statues of Alexander the Great) or does that require a separate category? Should this category be renamed "Equestrian statues by title" for the sake of clarity? Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Category:Equestrian statues by name should only contain categories with the name of the work in the name of the category. Category:Equestrian statues of Alexander the Great could be in Category:Equestrian statues by subject or some such, as Alexander is the name of the subject of the work, not the name of the work itself. This category should be cleaned up as a result. Josh (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: That makes sense, unless we want to use Category:Equestrian statues by equestrian (in Category:Equestrians). My only concern with "by subject" is that it could refer to the horse, rather than the rider, but I don't suppose that really matters either. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I am certainly fine with that. Josh (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: That makes sense, unless we want to use Category:Equestrian statues by equestrian (in Category:Equestrians). My only concern with "by subject" is that it could refer to the horse, rather than the rider, but I don't suppose that really matters either. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Created Category:Equestrian statues by equestrian. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Thefts in art redundant with Category:Thieves in art? If not, how are they related? And where should Category:Theft in art be redirected? Themightyquill (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- They're not redundant in theory, although files in the thieves category may show theft in progress. This file just shows just a person, and not a theft. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same, but what's the hierarchy? If an image shows a thief commiting a theft, which category does it go in? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, Category:Thieves is under Category:Theft, but that's theft (the concept), not thefts (the act). If we can assume that everything under thefts in art means theft in progress, then I guess thefts in art would go under thieves in art. Either that, or maybe we combine them? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think it would be best if the arrangement be as similar to Category:Theft as possible. I would suggest using Category:Theft in art as the parent cat with children Category:Thieves in art and Category:Thefts in art. Josh (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, Category:Thieves is under Category:Theft, but that's theft (the concept), not thefts (the act). If we can assume that everything under thefts in art means theft in progress, then I guess thefts in art would go under thieves in art. Either that, or maybe we combine them? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same, but what's the hierarchy? If an image shows a thief commiting a theft, which category does it go in? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Per Josh's suggestion, created Category:Theft in art as parent for Category:Thefts in art and Category:Thieves in art. Themightyquill (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
We also have Category:Augusta Nekolová – Jarešová. E4024 (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: What are you proposing? Which is correct? Josh (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Do you think I'm a polyglot? Got no idea which one is correct but when I opened this CfD there were two of them. Still? --E4024 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: merge both into Category:Augusta Nekolová-Jarešová per cs:Augusta Nekolová-Jarešová. Any objections? Josh (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Do you think I'm a polyglot? Got no idea which one is correct but when I opened this CfD there were two of them. Still? --E4024 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Augusta Nekolová-Jarešová. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Is it a good idea to have such other alphabet titles in Commons? E4024 (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, this and its sub should be translated. Unfortunately, these are beyond my language skills to do so. Josh (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Maksat, Tynchtyk Chorotegin, Wikiney, Yomaosh, Абдырашит Сатылганов, and Poti Berik: I believe these are in the Kyrgyz language. Can someone kindly provide an english translation of these two category names: Category:Башҡорт ҡатын-ҡыҙҙары йәмғиәте and Category:Башҡорт ҡатын-ҡыҙҙары йәмғиәтенең Совет ултырышы, 20.12.2017? Thanks in advance! Josh (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Tynchtyk Chorotegin, Poti Berik, and Draa kul: it is maybe Kazakh language (kk). We haven't administrators capable of native Kazakh. Maybe enwiki has? I also put here link category:WikiProject:Kazakhstan--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is Bashkir language. This category about the Bashkir woman society.--Draa kul (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Tynchtyk Chorotegin, Poti Berik, and Draa kul: it is maybe Kazakh language (kk). We haven't administrators capable of native Kazakh. Maybe enwiki has? I also put here link category:WikiProject:Kazakhstan--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Maksat, Tynchtyk Chorotegin, Wikiney, Yomaosh, Абдырашит Сатылганов, and Poti Berik: I believe these are in the Kyrgyz language. Can someone kindly provide an english translation of these two category names: Category:Башҡорт ҡатын-ҡыҙҙары йәмғиәте and Category:Башҡорт ҡатын-ҡыҙҙары йәмғиәтенең Совет ултырышы, 20.12.2017? Thanks in advance! Josh (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Society of Bashkir Women of the Republic Bashkortostan. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Society of Bashkir Women of the Republic Bashkortostan. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Cat under Category:Theologians Category:Muslims Category:Islam Category:Islamic theology Category:Islamic writers Category:Islamic scholars. We have a great problem in Commons (and WPs as well) on "Islam" because of people trying to give more "visibility" to either (i) Their own religion or (ii) to what they conceive as "adverse" religion or culture or way of life. Therefore Commons is full of images of otherwise totally out -of-scope people because they have a beard or they cover the hair, in case of females. We call this uncensured neutral point of view. Only to clean Commons of too many unnecessary items (cats, files etc) about Islam we need a special admin. This "crowded situation" makes difficult to see the beautiful mosques (architecture), works of art etc that are kept behind these OoS people. E4024 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: What are you proposing here? It is hard to see how a category for theologians obscures pictures of mosques. Do you want to strip the word 'Islam' from all categories, or what? As far as I was aware there is no negative connotation to being a Christian theologian, an Islamic theologian, or a theologian specializing in any other religion. Theology is a science and many theologians specialize in certain religions. It only makes sense to categorize professionals by their specialty. Josh (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Do you want to strip the word 'Islam' from all categories, or what?" This must be a joke. Theologians, scholars, muslim scholars of Islam etc. If you can find your way in the crowd congratulations. I get lost in those labyrinths. --E4024 (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Why would it be a joke? You were not clear about the scope of your request. Talking about "Commons is full of images of otherwise totally out -of-scope people because they have a beard or they cover the hair" is clearly beyond just a concern about this one category, so what are we to make of it? Josh (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Let me ask you a question also: Did you read the first sentence of my presentation? I will continue. --E4024 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you listed the categories it was under, which I can also see by browsing to that category and looking at the categorization there. What's your point? Josh (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Why is this cat under Category:Muslims? Are all Islamic theologians obliged to be Muslims? Why is it also under Category:Islam? Aren't Muslims already under Islam? Are all theologians also writers? If they are "Islamic scholars" they study Islam (IMHO) - what do the Islamic theologians study, "Islamic God"? Of course if people invent cats for Islamic doctors, pharmacists etc then I may appear to be the stupid who cannot realize the difference between scholar and... what was it, theologian? Do we have "Islamic academics" also? I know, I am the "lonely" one here as I am not a fan of no club. --E4024 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be under Category:Muslims, as there is no reason why a non-Muslim person can't study Islamic theology. Sounds like this is a COM:OVERCAT situation, so no need for a CfD, just remove from Category:Muslims and Category:Islam. It is under Category:Islamic theology because that is the field of study, so that makes sense. Theologians are not automatically writers, so you can remove it from Category:Islamic writers, but again, no need for a big to-do about it, just be bold and do it (unless someone has objected). Theologians are under scholars, but the whole Category:Islamic scholars cat has its own CfD (thank you) so we can discuss that there. If there is controcersy about an edit, then yes do a CfD, but explain the controversy and your proposal so we know what you are bringing to the table. Just dumping categories in CfD for some kind of random talk is not going to get on-point discussion happening. Let us know what you want done and why and then we can talk about it and agree, disagree or whatever. Josh (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Do you want to strip the word 'Islam' from all categories, or what?" This must be a joke. Theologians, scholars, muslim scholars of Islam etc. If you can find your way in the crowd congratulations. I get lost in those labyrinths. --E4024 (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. en:Category:Theologians notes that "People should not be categorized as theologian if they only studied theology and if, by their clerical occupation, they should be in en:Category:Clergy." By this logic, a a non-Muslim person can be a "Religious studies scholar" or "Muslim studies scholar" but not a theologian. ie. to be a theologican, you need to be at least a practicing member of that religious community, if not some kind of ranking member. I don't know if that's workable here, but it's one possibility. If kept, Category:Islamic theologians (or Category:Muslim theologians), would go under both Category:Islamic scholars/Category:Scholars of Islam (religion of focus) and Category:Muslim scholars (practicing religion of scholar, relevant to their writing) - Themightyquill (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I see, so a theologian by definition must be an adherant to the religion in question, if I understand correctly. This would simultaneously make it meaningful to distinguish the religion of the theologian as well as appropriate to use it as an adjective, so in that case, I would see it as okay to keep the category as is. I don't see a need to differentiate scholars in general by their religious adherance, but that is outside the scope of this CfD. Josh (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- The parent cats have changed somewhat. It looks like our current thought is to leave this largely as-is? I support this (though I believe we should remove the category from Category:Writers of Islamic literature). – BMacZero (🗩) 18:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Issue resolved. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Here we have subcats of various titles like Category:Writers in Turkish, Category:Bengali-language writers and Category:Occitan writers. To me "Writers in" sounds bad. Occitan writers do not reflect "language" but ethnicity. I prefer to carry all these subcats to "Category:X-language writers". This also avoids confusion. For example Halide Edip was a Turkish-language writer and English-language writer at the same time. E4024 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. We should probably do the same with Category:Poets by language. Are we sure that no one was categorized in either of these because of their nationality? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Probably more for ethnicity than nationality. I would not be surprised to see Nazım Hikmet as a Polish writer or poet because one of his so many grandies came from Poland... --E4024 (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Right, same issue. I hate to suggest this, but if we rename any that don't clearly indicate that language is meant, we should probably verify whether it's ethnicity/nationality/etc. or language in each case. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Probably more for ethnicity than nationality. I would not be surprised to see Nazım Hikmet as a Polish writer or poet because one of his so many grandies came from Poland... --E4024 (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I support this, though many of these don't need disambiguation with "-language", such as Hebrew, Arabic, Yiddish, Hindi, Esperanto,
Champenois, Aragonese,Dzongkha,Picard, Gaumais,Nepal Bhasa, etc. Those can, however be moved to "X writers". - Themightyquill (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)- Doesn't "Aragonese" also mean something that's from or related to Aragon? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Something or someone. --E4024 (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ahh, you're probably right. Champenois also refers to someone from Champagne, Picard is someone from Picardy, and Gaumais is someone from Gaume. My mistake. Usually Arabic is used to describe the language (hence Category:Arab poets but Category:Arabic poetry); however, we do have some "Arabic-language" examples too... - Themightyquill (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Something or someone. --E4024 (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Doesn't "Aragonese" also mean something that's from or related to Aragon? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Avoid ethnicity please, it only makes life more complicated. Everybody knows who is who but only partially. The Turkish actress Adile Naşit (and her less famous brother, also an actor) was daughter of a Turk and a Turkish Armenian but read her life: She lived all her life as a typical Muslim Turk, married another Muslim Turk, had a son (and lost him as a teenager) whose name was Ahmet. We discovered after her death that the Armenian side also had a Greek connection in the past (inter-Christian Orthodox marriages)... Coming back to our topic: There have always been Greek or Armenian (and other) people in Turkey (and in the past in Ottoman Empire) who have been "Turkish writers". I have no problem in calling them like that, but "Turkish language writers" or "Turkish-language writers" accommodate everybody and I prefer that denomination. For example Mıgırdiç Margosyan (https://www.arasyayincilik.com/tr/yazarlar/migirdic-margosyan/47) became writing and famous as a Turkish writer. (He will always be a "Turkish writer" by nationality, that's another issue.) Later in his career he also wrote several books in Armenian. His place is in three categories: "Writers from Turkey", "Turkish language writers", and "Armenian language writers". If a Turkish (or Ottoman) Armenian writer only wrote in Armenian or only in Turkish, he/she should be in only one of those language cats and in one of "Writers from Turkey" or "Writers from the Ottoman Empire" cats, as could be the case. I had to correct here Turkish people appearing in a cat like "Writers from Armenia". (The concerned person perhaps had not even visited Armenia once! :) So please let us achieve this language-based categorization and keep it apart from nationality (citizenship). "Ethnicity" has no place in what we are talking about. I just wanted to make it clear. --E4024 (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- stale discussion. @Auntof6@Themightyquill: all subcategories follow the pattern <Foo-language writers>. Are we ready to close this CFD? Estopedist1 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: I'd say so. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- stale discussion. @Auntof6@Themightyquill: all subcategories follow the pattern <Foo-language writers>. Are we ready to close this CFD? Estopedist1 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Resolved. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
It is not visible, what this category is intended to be. At the moment it is onky wrongly used for corporation logos, though it is categorised under orderliness. In this form it is wrong and serves no purpose. KPFC 💬 20:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Most of the content seems to belong under organizations, but there are a few files that seem appropriate here:
- There might be others: I just spot-checked. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like I started this category, but I sure don't remember what I was trying to do with it. I would think the logos should be moved to "logo" categories. Please fix the cat however you see fit, thanks. Cheers Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps Category:Organizational theory might be a substitute or redirect possibility for this category. And of coarse changing the files about organizations to proper categories. JopkeB (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6, Ruff tuff cream puff, and JopkeB: I've cleaned the logos out to where they belong, and it seems that this category can remain as the parent of organizations, organizational studies, organizers, etc. Or maybe upmerge it into Category:Structure or Category:Orderliness? Josh (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think it can remain. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6, Ruff tuff cream puff, and JopkeB: I've cleaned the logos out to where they belong, and it seems that this category can remain as the parent of organizations, organizational studies, organizers, etc. Or maybe upmerge it into Category:Structure or Category:Orderliness? Josh (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@KPFC, Auntof6, Ruff tuff cream puff, and Joshbaumgartner: Let's revive this discussion, because again there are too many files about organizations instead of organization. Let's start with a good definition. Is this category about "Organizing (management), a process of coordinating task goals and activities to resources"? If yes, than I suggest to rename this category to Category:Organizing (management), so there will be less misunderstandings. OR merge this category with Category:Management, because: what are the differences (in images)? JopkeB (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Proposals
[edit]- This category is about the activity of organizing: the processes of coordinating task goals and activities with resources; coordinating and arranging people in order to meet up and establish a set planned objectives.
- Category:Organizational theory is a grandchild (via Category:Organizational studies) and should remain so.
- There is a choice for the future of this category:
- Rename it to Category:Organizing (management) (with a redirect), because that is more clear.
- Merge it with Category:Management, because there are little differences in terms of images and other media.
Please, @KPFC, Auntof6, Ruff tuff cream puff, and Joshbaumgartner: give your opinion about these three proposals and about the best thing to do. --JopkeB (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I concur on no 1 and 2, as to 3: in theory I don't like merging the categories, because the words are not synonymous, rather Organization should be a subcategory of management. But in practice when looking at the actual contents it doesn't seem to make a difference. So I would propose to merge them. Category:Organizer should be deleted entirely imho, it is a useless category that contains subcategories for two completely different things that only happen to share the same name in the English language. Category:Organizational studies could be a subcategory of Category:Management science, which is a subcategory of Management. – KPFC 💬 14:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB and KPFC: I also fully agree on item 1. Category:Organization is the activity of organizing. Category:Organizations is a sub-category about the actual entities that result from said activity. I also agree on item 2: Category:Organizational studies are a subset of the overall activity of Category:Organization. I am not sold on merging Category:Organization and Category:Management, either as a true merge, or just in name (Category:Organization (management)), as I think management is a distinct thing (probably subclass) from organization (the aforementioned Organizational studies for example are not Management). I think having a topic named with one of its sub-topics in () is a bit odd. If it is really necessary to dab Organization, then I would suggest something like Organization (activity) as an alternative.
- I do understand that a lot of users will place files in Organization that really belong in Organizations. Since one is a sub of the other, that is probably to be expected as diffusion from main cats to sub cats is unfortunately a perpetual maintenance task. I am fine with adding a hat note similar to what has been placed there, encouraging users to diffuse contents and even highlighting Organizations in particular as being the right destination for such files. However, I fear it will do limited good, as I suspect most of these categorizations are being done by users without ever visiting the category to see the hat note in the first place. Josh (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Conclusions
[edit]- There is agreement upon the proposed definition, can be implemented.
- Place hat note(s) to encourage that files about organisations are being placed where they belong.
- The category structure stays as it is:
- This category should for now not be merged with Category:Management.
- This category sould stay as a parent of organizations, organizational studies, organizers, etc.
- This category should not be renamed, unless to Category: Organization (activity).
- Move files and subcategories that do not belong here to better categories. This is a perpetual maintenance task.
Still open:
- Shall we rename this category to Category: Organization (activity)?
Other remarks, outside the scope of this discussion:
- "Category:Organizer should be deleted" - please start a discussion about this subject yourself.
Question to all:
@KPFC, Joshbaumgartner, Auntof6, and Ruff tuff cream puff: Do you agree with
(1) the conclusions
(2) to rename this category to Category: Organization (activity)?
--JopkeB (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support @JopkeB: I concur with both. Josh (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support for both. – KPFC 💬 14:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | (1) Implement definition ; (2) Place hat note(s) ; (3) Rename to Category:Organization (activity) ; (4) Move files and subcategories that do not belong here to better categories Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
Is there a clear line of difference between what goes in Category:Art and what goes in Category:Art works? For instance, what goes in Category:Art works in Russia vs Category:Art in Russia? Is this a useful differentiation? Should Category:Art by material actually be Category:Art works by material ? Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- And what about Category:Creative works? Does it belong as a subcategory of Category:Art? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not all creative works are necessarily works of art (not to get into the thorny "what is art?" question!) but all works of art are creative works, so I would go the other way around, make "art works" a sub of "creative works". Josh (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Art works would be pieces of art that are created. That would go under art, as would things like I don't think all creative works should be under art or art works. Writings are creative works, but I wouldn't put them under art. Art works could be under creative works, though. A lot of what's in the "Art by <foo>" metacategories is probably art works, too, so we might want to rename those (or create separate, new categories if there's anything there other than works). --Auntof6 (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose an art studio for example should be in the Art tree, but is not an art work, so I can see a reason for keeping them seperate. Josh (talk)
- @Themightyquill and Auntof6: I would propose we keep both Category:Art and Category:Art works. "Art" is the overall field of art, while "Art works" are the actual created works of art, but other things would go under art but not art works, such as artists, art-related items (materials, tools, etc.), and other media about the field of art that are not just depicting a work of art. I do think a more careful eye should be given to the sub-cats as you mentioned, they may need a bit of sorting: I agree that "Art by material" should be "Art works by material". I think we should put a good note on both categories and keep both. I've listed some of the other tagged cats below. What do you think?
- Category:Art by condition: Move to Category:Art works by condition
- Category:Art by country: Keep as parent for the field of art in each country but have sub-cat Category:Art works by country of location and Category:Art works by country of origin
- Category:Art by date: Keep as it has Category:Artists by date, add Category:Art works by date (assuming this is date of creation)
- Category:Art by country of origin: Move to Category:Art works by country of origin (see "Art by country" above), rename subs from "Art from country" to "Art works from country"
- Category:Art by continent of origin: Move to Category:Art works by continent of origin (see "Art by country" above)
- Category:Art by origin: Delete. Move Category:Art by culture, Category:Art works by country of origin, Category:Art works by continent of origin directly under Category:Art
- Category:Art works by artist and Category:Art works by subject: Keep under Category:Art works
- Category:Art-related occupations and Category:Art occupations: Keep one under Category:Art, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Arts occupations
- Josh (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds very good, except that Category:Art works by country of origin and Category:Art works by continent of origin should be under art works, not directly under art. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Just to clarify, here's the proposal as it stands:
- Category:Art
- Category:Art works (also child of Category:Creative works)
- Category:Art works by condition (moved from Category:Art by condition)
- Category:Art works by country of location (moved from Category:Art by country of location)
- Category:Art works by country of origin (moved from Category:Art by country of origin)
- Category:Art works by continent of origin (moved from Category:Art by continent of origin)
- Category:Art works by date
- Category:Art works by artist
- Category:Art works by orientation of subject (new)
- Category:Facing forward in art works (e.g.) (moved from Category:Facing forward in art)
- Category:Art works by subject
- Category:Art by country
- Category:Art by date
- Category:People associated with art
- Category:Art works (also child of Category:Creative works)
Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Looks good. I suppose there would be a lot of overlap under those last two. Should the occupation category be a subcat of people associated with art? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I put a slash there as the issue of which of those is the correct name is under discussion elsewhere I believe. I would think that once that is resolved, only one of them will remain in that spot. Josh (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Yes, I understood that. What I meant by "those last two" was the last two lines, not the two on the last line. Wouldn't the occupation category fit under People associated with art? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: That matter has also come up in that discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Arts occupations. Yes, there would be overlap and in fact Category:Arts occupations should probably be under [:Category:People associated with art]]. I guess I was focusing more here on sorting the 'art' v. 'art work' question. Josh (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Yes, I understood that. What I meant by "those last two" was the last two lines, not the two on the last line. Wouldn't the occupation category fit under People associated with art? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: I put a slash there as the issue of which of those is the correct name is under discussion elsewhere I believe. I would think that once that is resolved, only one of them will remain in that spot. Josh (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- "Art" means "species" in several other languages (such as German and Swedish) so I'd suggest making Category:Art into a DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: Can I ask you to please start a separate discussion on that issue? We do need some base category for art works, art profesions, etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- I raised it here since although it is a separate issue it means that it would be better to not select "Art" as one to keep and instead turn it into a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: Can I ask you to please start a separate discussion on that issue? We do need some base category for art works, art profesions, etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't it time this discussion was closed? Evidently "Art" is an umbrella category for everything art-related. Most of the content needs disseminating into the specific categories (which already exist). Sionk (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
That's the point. "Art" should not be an "umbrella" category for everything, but in fact it is. Unfortunately the whole category tree is a mess. Reasons: 1. pertinent category definitions are widely missing and 2. commons does not (strictly) follow the established art classification. "Established" may seem very old-fashioned, but it would make the maintenance job a lot easier and, above all, there is no other alternative. Please keep in mind that
- Category:The arts is on top of the category tree and contains correctly named and categorized subcategories separating the three following main arts disciplines :
- Category:Visual arts (see Visual arts) including architecture, sculpturing, painting, graphic arts, decorative arts, filmmaking and art photography)
- Category:Performing arts (see Performing arts) including dance, music, theatre... and
- Literature.
- Category:The arts as "top" category for any kind of established art disciplines AND other creative activities should logically include a "top" art works category IMHO ideally named Category:Works of art (preferred, see works of art) with second parent Category:Works.
- Each of the above mentioned different disciplines produces a different kind of works of art. Consequently each of them needs its own art works category :
- Category:Visual arts has NONE
(except the bad named, misleading/misunderstood Category:Art works, resulting in a confusing holdall category suitable for every purpose) - Category:Performing arts → subcategory:Performances
- Category:Literature → subcategory:Literary works is perfect.
--Bohème (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Category:Visual arts has NONE
- This subject has wide ramifications for the entire project and is yet hidden away here, left for two or three people to make wide ranging decisions that may or may not be easily maintainable or even popular. The subject itself is not perfect , but its not broken either, and could be easily left alone. No one has complained about it, being, not fit for purpose.
- I say make no changes.
- The discussion is so large it should be advertised on the village pump in capital letters. It affects every editor on the project, This is a cynical punt by one knows best person, who is aiming to make huge numbers of edits for self aggrandisement. He is going to go ahead at some point and make changes without consensus. He's already done that with "Ships by name" which he changed against consensus into a made up term, by himself, a so called "flat list"; and even worse, again without consensus, made it useless by making it into a hidden category. That category because its hidden is seldom used, and more difficult to maintain because of the unwarranted changes. Broichmore (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Suggestion
- Rename Category:Art works
- New name : Category:Art works (visual arts)
- Reasons : aim is the categorization of « works of art in physical form, i.e. products of the en:Visual arts » (see category definition and above discussion). That should be clearly stated in the category name (see Commons:Naming categories#Principles). See also : WP:de (german).
- Parent categories : Category:Works of art (is to be created as subcategory of Category:The arts and Category:Works), 2nd parent: Category:Visual arts
- Subcategories :
- Category:Architectural works - 2nd parent: Category:Architecture
N.B.: currently named Category:Buildings and Category:Structures became subcategories ; there is already a Category:Architectural works by architect, - Category:Sculptures - 2nd parent: Category:Sculpture
- Category:Paintings - 2nd parent: Category:Painting
- Category:Graphics - 2nd parent: Category:Graphic arts
N.B.: Category:Graphics is for discussion, lacking category definition, another mess..., - Category:Decorative arts (art works) - 2nd parent: Category:Decorative arts
- Category:films - 2nd parent: Category:Filmmaking
- Category:Art photographs - 2nd parent: Category:Art photography
- Category:Architectural works - 2nd parent: Category:Architecture
Consequences :
- All "art works by..." categories, by …artist …condition, …continent, …country (of location & of origine), …date, …subject should move under Category:Works of art
--Bohème (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Bohème: I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't see how this helps us. What else will go in Category:Works of art but not *Category:Art works (visual arts)? And won't we end up with:
- Category:Art works (visual arts) by artist as a subcategory of Category:Works of art by artist
- Category:Art works (visual arts) by country as a subcategory of Category:Works of art by country
- Category:Art works (visual arts) by date as a subcategory of Category:Works of art by date
- Category:Art works (visual arts) by name as a subcategory of Category:Works of art by name
- Category:Art works (visual arts) by source as a subcategory of Category:Works of art by source
- Category:Art works (visual arts) by subject as a subcategory of Category:Works of art by subject
- Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry if this is off topic or should be posted elsewhere. What exactly is the difference between "period" and "date?" There seems to be a lot of overlap in terms of centuries, decades, years, etc.; and it seems like the subcategorization flips the further down it goes. Any clarification would be appreciated.- Invokingvajras (talk) 10:39, 17 Sept 2022 (UTC)
- @Invokingvajras: Medieval,ancient, contemporary and prehistoric are time periods without exact/fixed dates attached. -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@Themightyquill and Bohème: In hopes of resolving this--the current situation is a mess and right now perfect is becoming the enemy of the good. I'd like to get at least a basic structure agreed for now. We can tweak and refine it as we go forward, but the current structure is hopeless to work in, so how about this:
- Category:The arts (merge current Category:Art contents here and sort appropriately)
- Category:Literature
- Category:Performing arts
- Category:Visual arts
- Category:Visual works (unless we really feel a more spelled out name (Category:Works of visual art, Category:Visual works of art, Category:Art works (visual arts)) is really necessary?)
- Category:Works of art (merge current Category:Art works here and sort appropriately--I understand the vast majority will actually go to "visual works" or whatever we call that new cat)
- Category:Literary works
- Category:Performances
- Category:Visual works (see note above)
I think once this is in place we can shake out all of the sub-categorization within it, but until we get at least this done, down-tree adjustments will be hard to do. What do you think? Josh (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- It has been a couple of years this has been open, we have gotten a lot of good input, and I think we have more-or-less boiled down to some good basic conclusions, so I'm going to go ahead close this discussion. If there are parts of it or other tangental elements that need further discussion, we can easily open a new CfD for those topics as needed. Josh (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions |  Merge Category:Art into Category:The arts and other changes (see above) | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
- Comment This is a large amount of work and will need to happen over time. This discussion can serve as a guideline on how to transition existing categories and create new ones to fit in the improved scheme. Please include this discussion on the talk pages of any main categories that are changed to help users navigating, building and maintaining them. Note that we can also continue to adjust in the future as we get real experience upon implementation. Josh (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Eating oil? Are there people who "eat" oil? E4024 (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm guessing it means oil that's used in food. Maybe it should be called Bottles of edible oil? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Could be, why not? Anything but "eating oil" is alright. --E4024 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- The parent category Category:Bottles of oil also appears to be bottles of edible oil. Recommend:
- Rename Category:Bottles of oil to Category:Bottles of edible oil
- Upmerge Category:Bottles of eating oil into Category:Bottles of edible oil Josh (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Could I suggest either "cooking oil" or "vegetable oil" rather than "edible oil" since we don't have Category:Edible oils. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I just came across this category. May I suggest the more generic term 'culinary oils', as many such oils are used for cooking (eg - frying), as a dressing, as an ingredient, etc. Mindmatrix 17:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I think that 'culinary oils' works well, but food terms are not my specialty. Certainly better than 'edible oil'. Any objection? Josh (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Fine with me. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I think that 'culinary oils' works well, but food terms are not my specialty. Certainly better than 'edible oil'. Any objection? Josh (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner and Auntof6: Category:Bottles of culinary oils may sound nice, but we don't have Category:Culinary oils for a parent category. We do have Category:Vegetable oils if Category:Cooking oils is too restrictive. Category:Bottles of vegetable oils works, doesn't it? Unless you want to create a new category tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion. Enwiki has the following hierarchy: en:Category:Cooking oils (in Commons: Category:Cooking oils) is the parent of en:Category:Vegetable oils (in Commons: Category:Vegetable oils). Can we follow the enwiki pattern?. By the way, enwiki has 0 links to en:culinary oil--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Category deleted. Contents merged into Category:Cooking oil bottles, which seems intended for the vast majority if not all. ("Eating oil" is not a descriptive phrase used in US nor UK English, and if regularly used somewhere else I was did not find evidence in a short web search.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Sounds quite artificial to me, for just one file. E4024 (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding creating one category for one file, i think its ok to open one category for one file currently, if other files are known to exist but are not yet available as an open source license basis. The reason is that is that it would help ths file to be categorized and so becoming accesible and not floating as uncategorized. Another reason is that when someone adds an open source file that would be included in the category, would find the category easily. I believe this should be allowed only if other files are known to exist but not yet available. As for Abbasid Egyptian cotton, there are lots of surviving examples in museums. That is why i chose to start the category. Regards --Ashashyou (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- However, you forgot to open or use the "Brazilian cotton" category although this variety is also on that same lonely file. I know you don't like allegorical speech, therefore I will say it openly: I think you are interested in promoting Egypt and only Egypt with this kind of cats. If not, Brazil would not have been ignored in the categorization. Regards. --E4024 (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- You still can't accept people difference. I am an Egyptian, i am trying to share my Egyptian culture as part of the world heritage. Egyptian culture is part of the world heritage. Various textiles in Asia and Africa are still using the name "Egyptian cotton" in marketing its products. I am a good reader. I only start categories and manage photos about what i know. I happen to read alot on many subjects outside medicine. Thats why i contribute in lots of subjects. However I don't contribute to subjects that i don't know well. Brazilian cotton is beyond my knowledge. Thanks for introducing it to me. I hope you have opened a category for it. I hope you try to read about the Egyptian cotton, it was the white gold during the American civil war era, until appearance of petroleum oil-the black gold. It was very important to colonialism and the international trade. As for Egyptian textile, all world museums contain samples of it. Regards --Ashashyou (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- However, you forgot to open or use the "Brazilian cotton" category although this variety is also on that same lonely file. I know you don't like allegorical speech, therefore I will say it openly: I think you are interested in promoting Egypt and only Egypt with this kind of cats. If not, Brazil would not have been ignored in the categorization. Regards. --E4024 (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Egyptian cotton. --E4024 (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Still you are not discussing, but offpointing by vague comments and unrelated subjects. Please stop mixing papers. I didn't put in ther other categories links to your harassment discussions. I think this is not professional. You asked for discussion, i am discussing. Regards--Ashashyou (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ashashyou: Can you please explain what "Egyptian Abbasi cotton" is, preferably with references? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Still you are not discussing, but offpointing by vague comments and unrelated subjects. Please stop mixing papers. I didn't put in ther other categories links to your harassment discussions. I think this is not professional. You asked for discussion, i am discussing. Regards--Ashashyou (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion. I suggest to upmerge this one file. Some explanation in enwiki en:Abassi: "Abassi cotton, a variety of en:Egyptian cotton, grown in lower Egypt"--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Category Deleted, apparently never had more than one file; recategorized per above suggestions. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what files would fit into this concept, but I don't think the files currently in it illustrate "very". If I'm missing something, please let me know. Auntof6 (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral This could be useful as a dumping category for files that need to be put in a better category but its not clear what it should have in it per w:WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Useful as a dumping ground? More useful than just tagging as uncategorized? How so? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well so that they are at least a category of some relevance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Useful as a dumping ground? More useful than just tagging as uncategorized? How so? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep There is a concept "Very" in many languages. In this case, I think mainly, Expression of "(advertising) signs". There is no room for entering the "subjectivity of users (including me)". --Benzoyl (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Benzoyl: The fact that the concept exists doesn't mean it makes a useful category. If you think this is useful, maybe you can explain how the concept of "very" applies to the files currently in the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I certainly lean towards Auntof6's feelings on this one. There is a concept of "beautiful" in many languages too, but we don't have a category by that name. Do all these advertising signs use the word "very" in some language? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I say again, We Don't decide beautiful or not, very or not. As a target, The words (beautiful / very) in the picture with an objective eye. Very - File:Very Very Very Closed (2) (4497389597).jpg --Benzoyl (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- "beautiful" - Category:Beauty is exist. --Benzoyl (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- So you're saying that this category is for images that show the word very? That wouldn't be for the concept then, but for the text, and it shouldn't matter that it's an adjective. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I certainly lean towards Auntof6's feelings on this one. There is a concept of "beautiful" in many languages too, but we don't have a category by that name. Do all these advertising signs use the word "very" in some language? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Benzoyl: The fact that the concept exists doesn't mean it makes a useful category. If you think this is useful, maybe you can explain how the concept of "very" applies to the files currently in the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ahh, okay, that makes sense. I'm not sure if the other images in the category include the word very though. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Finally, I am not against deletion Category:Very (adjective). The possibility of this category's prosperity is low. Because, This is limited to only "signs". --Benzoyl (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- If we want a category for the word being displayed on something, maybe the category should be renamed to something like "Very (text)". That could be done with other categories where the point is that the word is displayed in an image. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Finally, I am not against deletion Category:Very (adjective). The possibility of this category's prosperity is low. Because, This is limited to only "signs". --Benzoyl (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Very (text) also makes more sense to me. I note that we have Category:Out (word) as a subcategory of Category:Written words - Maybe that's a model to follow? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- We also have the many sub-categories of Category:Images by text in the style "Text:Very" - Themightyquill (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- i didn't know about that category. This category should fit there very well, although I'm not sure all of the images in it fit. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- stale discussion. @Auntof6@Benzoyl@Crouch, Swale@Themightyquill: currently we have two files in this category. Probably both of them are not suitable for Category:Text:Very. Besides, Category:Very is missing, and should be a DAB Estopedist1 (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Having categories for words seems not defining enough, a signs in X category should be enough. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- stale discussion. @Auntof6@Benzoyl@Crouch, Swale@Themightyquill: currently we have two files in this category. Probably both of them are not suitable for Category:Text:Very. Besides, Category:Very is missing, and should be a DAB Estopedist1 (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- i didn't know about that category. This category should fit there very well, although I'm not sure all of the images in it fit. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- We also have the many sub-categories of Category:Images by text in the style "Text:Very" - Themightyquill (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Why are the two images not suitable for Category:Text:Very? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
_(4497389597).jpg){kind=link}
Content - two files, photos of hand written signs including the word "very" - moved to Category:Very (text) in line with similar categories for individual words in text. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Unnecessary, politely said. E4024 (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: Can anyone explains the situation? Or we will close this CFD as "unclear nomination, stale discussion"--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Closed, in use, no consensus to do anything in particular about it. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Cat with one person. Alright, normal. Maybe scholars in Italy are more inclined to study other religions. OK. What is not normal is, this cat was under Category:Schools in Italy; I saw it absurd and changed to Category:Scholars from Italy. Annd the winner is: There was no such category in Commons! Now I'm surprised. How come there are no "scholars" from Italy? Or do we use "scholars" as a parallell to academics, philosophers, something that I do not know? I mean did we choose "scholars" for Islam only? We call other scholars with another name? Maybe we have a duplication or something. How come "no scholars from Italy"? Or I was looking at the cat of a tiny country like San Marino? But even in Vatican there are so many scholars... I think we have a broader issue here. E4024 (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- See Category:Scholars by subject. "Scholars" has not been used exclusively for people who study Islam. There is a difference betwen scholar and academic, which you can find in the lead paragraph of en:Scholar. You're right that there is currently no Category:Scholars from Italy, but such a category would have plenty of peers in Category:Scholars by country, so you're welcome to create it. I would add that few of these "Scholars from X" categories are focused on Islamic scholars. Category:Scholars from Italy could also house the existing Category:Classical scholars from Italy. I don't see any broader issue. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024 and Themightyquill: Per the discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Islamic scholars, any objection to likewise renaming this category Category:Scholars of Islam from Italy? Josh (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: That wouls make sense to me. The same applies to Category:Islamic scholars by country and all its subcategories. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024 and Themightyquill: Per the discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Islamic scholars, any objection to likewise renaming this category Category:Scholars of Islam from Italy? Josh (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Procedural close - already moved. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)