Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2020/05
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive May 2020
Please change the spelling of this category to "Category:Riki Shelach" (with a capital "S") because Riki Shelach is a person. Thanks in advance. 64.43.152.176 22:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Tks, done ! צחי לרנר (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is a different person than Riki Shelach Nissimoff? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Done: renamed. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
typo, request deletion from author @assanges (talk | cont | uploads) 11:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Mi servirebbe sapere se è specie protetta,o da espiantare perchè non autoctona in dune italianee 37.119.252.185 13:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Out of procedural scope. --Achim (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
cross wiki spam Quakewoody (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --JuTa 06:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
According to @Elisfkc: the pictures here violates COM:Toys Trade (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I converted this discussion to a DR. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lego sculptures of fictional characters. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Should be deleted. Replaced by category:Damp-proof course. Where is the "Nominate category for deletion" link? KaiKemmann (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Solved this by making the category a redirect instead. Thanks. KaiKemmann (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Category:Nokia 1 Dienthoaiquangcao62 (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Nonsense, nothing to discuss. --jdx Re: 10:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Village doesn't exist, there is only Berrington Hall, Berrington Park (the land belonging to Berrington Hall) and a railway station named after the house. The category had been connected to a Wikidata item for the village of Berrington in Worcestershire. Peter James (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- These categories were batch created based on the English Wikipedia in this case en:Berrington, Herefordshire. The article was renamed to en:Berrington, Worcestershire because the village is just on the other side of the river. Today you changed the redirect to en:Berrington Hall. Probably best to make a disambiguation page of en:Berrington, Herefordshire because both don't really fit well. Category here can just be deleted. Multichill (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Berrington, Worcestershire after clearing out images for Herefordshire since there is the likes of File:Nursery, Berrington Court. - geograph.org.uk - 88876.jpg that could go in the Worcestershire category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: I created the missing category. Feel free to move images there. Moving the category will just make things more complicated. Multichill (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Multichill: I've added the above image to the Worcestershire category and moved all the contents of the Herefordshire category to the parish category. Presumably the Herefordshire category should be deleted but it could be redirected to the Worcestershire category or the hall. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: I created the missing category. Feel free to move images there. Moving the category will just make things more complicated. Multichill (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Deleted it. The category was a mix of Category:Berrington, Worcestershire and Category:Berrington Hall. Redirecting it would risk more confusing. Thanks for bringing this up and helping to sort this out. Multichill (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Catégorie impossible à gérer : il y a 2054 cantons en France, et trop de cas spéciaux (villes à plusieurs cantons). De plus, le canton n'est pas un niveau pertinent pour le sujet. Sa suppression ne fera rien perdre. Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Et pourquoi cette fixation sur la Corse et les outre-mers ? Bizarre.. --Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Done: empty. --JuTa 02:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
This subcategory needs cleanup SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Cancel the CFD please SpinnerLaserz (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Closing by nominator's request. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
This category needs clean up SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Cancel this CFD SpinnerLaserz (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Closing by nominator's request. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category after very carefully reviewing recent concerns of a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user SpinnerLaserz (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:User_fr-1 196.96.14.161 16:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Frivolous nom. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
hand job 71.200.226.243 18:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done: nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Category created due to editing mistake. SV1XV (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Created this before noticing that there's aready a 'F-5 (Hellenic Air Force)' category Loco70 (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
{{delete|reason=Redundant|subpage=Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:F-5A/B (Hellenic Air Force)|year=2020|month=May|day=22}}
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Empty category for an event far in the future. FredWalsh (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Categorize for Speedy deletion under criteria C2. If there were files there (say a diagram of the orbit) I could see a use but empty, no. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Deleted by User:Túrelio. FredWalsh (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Same person as Category:Lee Seung Woo? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Josve05a: yes. Puramyun31 (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Merge and rename to "woo" not "Woo". --E4024 (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Done: As above. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Empty category without information or interwiki links Rsteen (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Non notable person who is trying it's way hard to create his own Wikipedia articles. Long time history of sock ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 12:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Already deleted so close? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- @DMacks: Please do the needful ----✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 05:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by DMacks. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
typo (treking instead of treking) Category is at category:Manaslu circuit, empty. please delete Rupert Pupkin (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- ooops ...trekking instead of treking... --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Rupert Pupkin Using template:bad name would probably be a lot faster as it's a speedy deletion criteria. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, I used to know that. But I'm too much off and on (not so much anymore), so I forgot about that. And the link "nominate category for discussion" on the left was too easy to find... Best regards --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The category was deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
This category was created by mistake. This must be "Category:Oyodo_Michikaze"(Already exists) Kochizufan (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Tagged with {{Badname}} – BMacZero (🗩) 16:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
cross wiki spam / empty categoy Quakewoody (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Done by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
cross wiki spam / out of scope Quakewoody (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Done by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
empty category Quakewoody (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Obsolete / mistake (request by creator on the same day) Eissink (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Eissink: You don't need to request discussion for deletion for this reason; just add {{speedy|G1}} or {{speedy|G7}} to the category. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Marked for speedy. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The capitalisation should definitely be corrected, but the supercategory is called Category:Heart icons, so I suggest naming this one Category:SVG heart icons. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, I don't know what a "love heart" is but this category definitely contains all kinds of hearts. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Renamed. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
"letters" shouldn't be capitalised. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, moved. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed and files moved too (@Andy Dingley: please don’t forget to do that in future). FredWalsh (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's what we have 'bots for. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Or Cat-a-lot? FredWalsh (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Empty category for an event far in the future. FredWalsh (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Categorize for Speedy deletion under criteria C2. If there were files there (say a diagram of the orbit) I could see a use but empty, no. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Empty category about a non-notable artist and created by a proven sock puppet. SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 20:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Created in error, Duplicate to Category:Culture of Aalborg Liberaler Humanist (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why not just use the {{Speedydelete|}} template? That usually works fine for me. --Hjart (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Duplicated with category: Działkowa Street in Katowice MacQtosh (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Tagged as {{Badname}}. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Duplicated with category: Pod Kasztanami Street in Katowice MacQtosh (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Tagged with {{Badname}}. @MacQtosh: in the future, you can use "Move" on the "More" dropdown to preserve the page history. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
What is the difference between this and Category:Projectors? Auntof6 (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- The former is a subcat of the latter. IOW (in other words) nonsense. However, if you continue to open CfDs with questions like this, you may be blocked from editing. ("starting CfDs without taking the time to explain the CfD" - see my talk page.) I am upmerging this to the plural. It is loss of time. --E4024 (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Redirected by E4024. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
IMO numbers have 7 digits only. This is not a valid IMO number. This is the ENI number, and the category should be moved to Category:ENI 02316747 w/o keeping a redirect. - 4ing (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Apparently this was an ENI number and not an IMO number. Since the EMI category already existed I deleted the IMO. Cheers, Rudolphous (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Rudolphous. (Don't forget to close the discussion, User:BMacZero/QuickCfdClose might help). – BMacZero (🗩) 17:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Category should be renamed to "Mirror Stream" which is the common English name for the fountain. Current name is only understandable for locals..... -- — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Logical solution per user:Yulia Romero. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@JYB Devot: moved it from category:Chauvet Cave to French name. Reason: francisation. Whenever possible and rational, we should use English name in Commons. Hence the moving should be reverted. Compare en:Chauvet Cave Estopedist1 (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Done: According to Commons:Language policy, "Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent.". --4nn1l2 (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Spelling mistake and unnecessary C1K98Vrespond 08:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Its not a spelling mistake its a redirect from non diacritics and its quite likely people won't know to type then since English doesn't usually have them, that said category redirect are more costly than normal redirects. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@C1K98V and Crouch, Swale: . The redirect is logical solution here. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete this. There are no departments in Turkey. E4024 (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Empty cat and no objection since 3 weeks Túrelio (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
seeking opinions - most likely LTA cross wiki spam from mh6ti. Quakewoody (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Empty cat and no objection since 3 weeks Túrelio (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
empty category Exilexi (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- May be deleted. I created it because it was a Monument historique, and aimed to be peopled. It can easily be recreated when photographs are available. Jack ma (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Empty cat and no objection since 3 weeks Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
please remove this category, there is a typing error in its name (the correct category is Na Hlinech (Starý Knín) Miloš Hlávka (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Empty cat and no objection since nearly 3 weeks. Túrelio (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
cross wiki spam / out of scope Quakewoody (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Already deleted on Wikidata. Tagged for {{Speedy}}. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
cross wiki spam - previously deleted Quakewoody (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
cross wiki spam / out of scope Quakewoody (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Already deleted on Wikidata. Tagged for {{Speedy}}. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
cross wiki spam - previously deleted Quakewoody (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Needless unsystematical category. No other similar category by year in Category:Students in Mexico. All 3 included files are overcategorized. ŠJů (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oh well I made it in order to categorize the current students situation in Mexico, but if its not neccesary, then delete the category. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ŠJů and TheBellaTwins1445: Maybe it should be renamed to Category:Students in Mexico during the COVID-19 pandemic to clarify the intent? – BMacZero (🗩) 17:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- BMacZero, Oh that sounds way better, yes I think it could be a good change for the stuff here then. Regards. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ŠJů and TheBellaTwins1445: Maybe it should be renamed to Category:Students in Mexico during the COVID-19 pandemic to clarify the intent? – BMacZero (🗩) 17:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- @BMacZero and TheBellaTwins1445: Yes, the renaming proposal corresponds to the creator's intention and original categorization. However, are we sure the three similar photos of one boy need such a specific category which has no sister categories and haven't the parent category of "students during the COVID-19 pandemic" for such item? Maybe, situation of students during the pandemic can be a relevant specific item, but in such case, we should try to find other uploaded images of students from various countries to fill this new category tree. The most related existing category tree is Category:Schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, which can contain files related to closed schools (of all types and levels), temporarily repurposed schools, infection-safety regime in schools or distance learning managed by schools. We haven't also categories "children during the COVID-19 pandemic" nor "senior citizens during the COVID-19 pandemic" yet, that's why such a way of categorization a bit deviates from the system for now. Non-school activities of students are similar to activities of other people in quarantine (lockdown), not so specific IMHO. However, if we find more various photos falling into such item, such a category can be meaningful. Maybe, house studying is a specific item (different from the "schools" item), as well as other house activities during the lockdown. --ŠJů (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- ŠJů, I found some pictures for a new category then instead of only Mexico - Student studying Honduras.jpg, South African Primary School Children 07.jpg, and some more, we can rename it "Category:Students worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- It fits better, what do you think? TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- After the next renaming and filling, it can be acceptable. --ŠJů (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- It fits better, what do you think? TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- ŠJů, I found some pictures for a new category then instead of only Mexico - Student studying Honduras.jpg, South African Primary School Children 07.jpg, and some more, we can rename it "Category:Students worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- @BMacZero and TheBellaTwins1445: Yes, the renaming proposal corresponds to the creator's intention and original categorization. However, are we sure the three similar photos of one boy need such a specific category which has no sister categories and haven't the parent category of "students during the COVID-19 pandemic" for such item? Maybe, situation of students during the pandemic can be a relevant specific item, but in such case, we should try to find other uploaded images of students from various countries to fill this new category tree. The most related existing category tree is Category:Schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, which can contain files related to closed schools (of all types and levels), temporarily repurposed schools, infection-safety regime in schools or distance learning managed by schools. We haven't also categories "children during the COVID-19 pandemic" nor "senior citizens during the COVID-19 pandemic" yet, that's why such a way of categorization a bit deviates from the system for now. Non-school activities of students are similar to activities of other people in quarantine (lockdown), not so specific IMHO. However, if we find more various photos falling into such item, such a category can be meaningful. Maybe, house studying is a specific item (different from the "schools" item), as well as other house activities during the lockdown. --ŠJů (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Moved by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Creator's request, I want to delete this category because it is useless, we already have "Pages with broken links". etc. Red-back spider (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Red-back spider: You should just apply {{speedy|G7}} to the page if you created it within the last 7 days and it's empty. It doesn't need discussion under those circumstances. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I believe this category should be moved to the redirect Category:Photographic silhouettes of aircraft. Pinging @JMK: . – BMacZero (🗩) 03:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm proposing this because:
- It's not clear from the current name how this category is different from the parent Category:Silhouettes of aircraft.
- This category would fit under Category:Photographic silhouettes, which needs it, and the proposed name is consistent with the rest of that category.
- The current name is consistent with the parent Category:Aircraft by view, but I don't think "silhouette view" is really a view in the sense that category is using. Views are almost entirely based on the viewing direction, but a silhouette can be in any direction.
- – BMacZero (🗩) 04:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. This category was created to separate photos from drawings, and that was before the creation of category Photographic silhouettes.PeterWD (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Cool, go ahead. JMK (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. This category was created to separate photos from drawings, and that was before the creation of category Photographic silhouettes.PeterWD (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Requested move from CommonsDelinker. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete this. There are no departments in Turkey. E4024 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
are any of these files really freely licensed 1.Ayana (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- They are Template:PD-textlogo, i.e. the logo in these files “consists only of simple geometric shapes [and] does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection” according to Commons. I never really agreed to that concept, since I don’t think simple designs fell in the public domain like this, but it’s a principle that is massively applied on Commons. So I agree that these files are clearly not freely licensed, but it’s not just the Instagram logo, but all non-free logos that are uploaded here (and I’m guilty of it as well, when I upload logos here, I’m just following the general practise without being convinced about it at all) ~ nicolas (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
this category should be under the name: category:Instagram logos--Estopedist1 (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, for consistency with siblings. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Category moved. We use plural in Commons. Discussion closed. Estopedist1 (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
See also: Category talk:Jonah (Paffhausen). renaming is under discussion in enwiki en:Talk:Jonah Paffhausen. It seems that no consensus and therefore I guess we should follow enwiki name: category:Jonah Paffhausen which seems neutral and standard human name Estopedist1 (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- enwiki discussion is closed (see en:Talk:Jonah Paffhausen). So I am going to move it to Category:Jonah Paffhausen--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
renamed. Discussion closed. See also Category talk:Jonah Paffhausen Estopedist1 (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Converted category أمين (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @أمين: should we delete this redirect? Also note that category:Files by Ameen is subcategory of category:Files by User:Ameen Rammal. Seems to be logical mistake?--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
per nomination. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
from talk page:
- Same person
Is this the same person as Category:Kim So-hye? Due to the cross-race effect I'm having issues confirming if this is the same person. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Estopedist1 (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- was answered here: Category talk:Kim So-hyae--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC) @Josve05a: problem solved. Discussion closed Estopedist1 (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Empty category. Moreover, it seems to be quite nonsense, this category 188.110.54.18 12:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Redundant to Category:Groups of trucks. --Achim (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per Achim and possibly also delete all of Category:Many (adjective) as subjective. How do you define "many" is 3 many if you're on a rural road or is 30 not many if you're at a truck stop? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin and Joshbaumgartner: a zombie has revived: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Symbols by quantity--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete this particular category, as it is empty. There is no reason not to delete it unless someone feels like populating it, and even if someone wishes to do so in the future they can re-create it at that time. Do NOT expand this to cover all 'many' categories, that kind of proposal is an unnecessary muddying of the waters of this very specific deletion. Josh (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, as per nomination. --jdx Re: 20:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Useless category as a result of recent concerns made by a French user (in other words, delete it and it's subcategories as soon as possible) SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note that this discussion concerns most of the category tree. Many of the subcategories are entirely empty. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Is it okay if you can make the discussion very quick as soon as possible? I am requesting speedy deletion. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @SpinnerLaserz: Oh, apologies, I did not correctly interpret what you wanted. You do not need to start a discussion for a speedy deletion. Instead, just add {{Speedy}} to the affected pages. In this case, something like
{{speedy|G7; [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Photographs of flags of France by arrondissement]]}}should be appropriate. An administrator will then delete the page, probably within a few days. – BMacZero (🗩) 00:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)- Are there more to delete? Requesting just the one leaves the others parentless. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: SpinnerLaserz is requesting that the entire tree be deleted. There were other CfDs that I reduced to this one, but I didn't note that here, sorry. It has no files in it. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- @SpinnerLaserz: Category:Photographs of flags of France in Lyon was not empty, so I removed it from this tree. If that should also be deleted, it needs to be emptied. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Are there more to delete? Requesting just the one leaves the others parentless. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- @SpinnerLaserz: Oh, apologies, I did not correctly interpret what you wanted. You do not need to start a discussion for a speedy deletion. Instead, just add {{Speedy}} to the affected pages. In this case, something like
- Is it okay if you can make the discussion very quick as soon as possible? I am requesting speedy deletion. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
So ...
- category:Photographs of flags of France in Corsica by arrondissement
- category:Photographs of flags of France in French Guiana by arrondissement
- category:Photographs of flags of France in Guadeloupe by arrondissement
- category:Photographs of flags of France in Martinique by arrondissement
- category:Photographs of flags of France in Pays de la Loire by arrondissement
- category:Photographs of flags of France in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur by arrondissement
- category:Photographs of flags of France in Réunion by arrondissement
more? — billinghurst sDrewth 16:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: Yes, and all of their category children, all the way down. The other requests are visible at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2020/05. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Except for those that I have cancelled since they can stay. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Please provide a list of categories for deletion. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- I want these to deleted:
- category:Photographs of flags of France in Corsica by arrondissement
- category:Photographs of flags of France in French Guiana by arrondissement
- category:Photographs of flags of France in Guadeloupe by arrondissement
- category:Photographs of flags of France in Martinique by arrondissement
- category:Photographs of flags of France in Pays de la Loire by arrondissement
- category:Photographs of flags of France in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur by arrondissement
- category:Photographs of flags of France in Réunion by arrondissement ASAP SpinnerLaserz (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Question – What are the "recent concerns" that would make category deletions "as soon as possible" necessary? Senator2029 12:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- They are not needed anymore. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
This should be the complete list of categories to delete. They were all created by SpinnerLaserz around May 17th and there are no files anywhere in the tree. They should have just been deleted as G7 initially, though it has been longer than a week at this point. SpinnerLaserz, can you confirm that this list is correct? Also @Billinghurst: .
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Corsica by arrondissement
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Corse-du-Sud by arrondissement
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de Sartène
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement d'Ajaccio
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Haute-Corse by arrondissement
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de Corte
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de Bastia
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de Calvi
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in French Guiana by arrondissement
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de Cayenne
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Guadeloupe by arrondissement
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de Basse-Terre
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de Pointe-à-Pitre
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de Fort-de-France
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement du Marin
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de Saint-Pierre (Martinique)
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de La Trinité
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Pays de la Loire by arrondissement
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Vendée by arrondissement
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de La Roche-sur-Yon
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur by arrondissement
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Alpes-Maritimes by arrondissement
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de Grasse
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de Nice
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Réunion by arrondissement
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de Saint-Benoît
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de Saint-Denis (La Réunion)
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de Saint-Paul
- Category:Photographs of flags of France in Arrondissement de Saint-Pierre (La Réunion)
– BMacZero (🗩) 00:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- To fit the theme of the nom, Oui. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Done per nomination of recent creations supported by contributor. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The exonyme Transnistria is locally felt as biased or even offensive, having connotations to the WWII term of then Romanian fascist regime for the while region of Podolia, intended for banishment of Romanian Jews, i.e. connected with nazism and holocaust, and geographically different area. The term Transnistria is geographically and politically connected with the Romanian point of view. The unrecognized republic prefers to call themselves Pridnestrovie (Pridnestrovia), and this name probably prevails also in Ukraine and Russia. As Pridnestrovian editor mentioned in previous discussions (at his talk page), Pridnestrovie does not have an established name in the English language and names used vary by the author and context. However, the name Transnistria is locally felt as a Nazi term promoted "by the aggressive Romanian nationalist lobby". In my view, the Romanian point of view (which should be not reduced to the fascist period of this country) can have also its weight and relevance, but we should consider whether the name preferred by the local (although internationally unrecognized) government can be more neutral and more in line with Commons namming policy. --ŠJů (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Btw., duplication Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Pridnestrovie and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Transnistria should be also solved. --ŠJů (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for starting this thread. I believe that it is necessary to correct the name. I will try to clarify some points about terminology and names.
- In fact, Pridnestrovie and Transnistria are completely different concepts.
- Transnistria is:
- 1) the occupation regime created on the territory of the modern Odessa region of Ukraine during the Second World War, where genocide of the civilian population was perpetrated;
- 2) the term invented at the same time by Romanian Nazis for the interfluve of the Dniester and the Southern Bug as a territory for the forcible settlement of Romanians instead of the annihilated population, it's is the same territory, but here considered not as an occupation regime, but as a region highlighted by the Romanians, which the Turks called Edisan until the 19th century.
- Pridnestrovie is:
- 1) the unrecognized state between Ukraine and Moldova - the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, declaring its independence;
- 2) the preceding to it Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic - an administrative entity that claimed to become part of the USSR; after the collapse of the USSR, it was transformed into PMR (not as socialist state);
- 3) the region covering the territory along the Dniester River (and not only the left bank).
- In English, there really is no established designation for a self-proclaimed state in the east of Moldavia. In a different context, in different sources a whole set of names is used: Transdniester, Trans-Dniestr, Transdniestria, Pridnestria, Pridnestrovia, Pridnestrovie, Dnestr Republic, Nistrenia, Nistria, Transnistria, TMR, PMR, Left Bank of Dniester, Stinga Nistrului, Cisdniestria, etc.
- The name "Transnistria" appeared in 1992 during the Moldovan-Pridnestrovian war, when the aggressive nationalists who came to power in Moldova needed to somehow name the breakaway state. It was then that they recalled the term of Romanian Nazi criminals, because they could not use the "Russian" name. It was then that we again heard calls "to flood the streets of "Transnistria" with Russian blood" and "to drown the Russians and Jews in the Dniester". Then it leaked to the West, because (for obvious reasons) the Western media broadcasted Romanian and Moldovan sources in connection with this war. Literally, this term is translated as “through the Dniester,” “on the other side of the Dniester” - from Romania, of course; it is clear from this that the word has no relation to Pridnestrovie even outside the context of Romanian nationalism.
- Over time, this word was almost forgotten: official sources used either "Stînga Nistrului" if it was about the administrative division of Moldova, or "PMR" if it was about the breakaway state itself. In the English language, this region does not have a well-established designation simply because even a fraction of the percentage of native speakers hardly heard about it, and the choice of terminology was dictated solely by context. It received a “new life” with the spread of the Internet and the advent of Wikipedia, which became the main distributor of the term in the Internet environment.
- This is the main reason for the confusion and misunderstanding that sometimes leads to conflicts. In the Pridnestrovie, this term, applied as the name of this region, is considered a gross insult and disrespect for the locals and the history of their country.
- More about this, for example, here:
- President of the PMR: The term «Transnistria» is the occupational concept offensive for Pridnestrovie
- «Zadnestrovye» — «Transnistria» was thought up by Romanians. «Pridnestrovie» was accepted by the people
- Transnistria must be vanished
- Pridnestrovie, not Transnistria. Bendery deputies want to appeal to UN
- I do not think that in English or any other world-class language there is at least one name of the country, which would be an insult to its population.
- In English, the most common name of the subject is "Stînga Nistrului" or "Left bank of the Dniester", as follows from official documents of Moldova. This is natural, given that the main area where English is used in relation to this subject is the issue of resolving the frozen conflict and the diplomatic relations of the participants in the negotiation process, including EU and USA. All the use of "transnistria" comes down to Internet dumps, the source of which is Wikipedia, nothing more. We should be guided by the official documents of the state that is described here, and the self-name of the people, and not engage in promoting biased and offensive terminology. Here are the legislative acts defining the correct name of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic:
- The Constitution of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, article 55, paragraph 1
- Decree of the President of PMR No. 591 of November 29, 2000 “On transliteration and toponymy of names”
- The PMR Constitutional Law of July 4, 2011 No. 94 “On Amendments and Additions to the PMR Constitution”
- Decree of the President of PMR No. 252 of April 6, 2012 "On transliteration and toponymy of names"
- At the same time, pay attention to the precedent with the renaming of Nagorno-Karabakh to Artsakh in February 2017: in the absence of politically biased opposition from interested groups of editors, no conflicts arose.
- Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Pridnestrovian editor: Most of the sources prove undoubtedly, that the Pridenstrovian authorities promote and enforce the name Pridnestrovie and refuse the name Transnistria, even when they use English language in their texts.
- However, there are no sources documenting which name is prevalently used for the country by independent users of English language and which meaning and connotations those names have in such use. It can be assumed that the name Transnistria is perceived in the international context as a neutral designation of the country of Pridnestrovie. It is quite common that an exonym is not a literal translation of the country's domestic name. The fact that the exonym appeared in connection with the local conflicts indicates above all that until a territory has the ambition to be a subject of international law, until then there is no significant need to write and talk about this territory in an international context and have an exonym for it. The preposition "trans" ("za") instead of "pri" (="along", "around") indicates a bit different point of view but not necessarily some "insult" or other bias. Transcaucasia is "trans" Caucas from the Russian point of view, and "South Caucasus" is more neutral, but in some countries, equivalents of "Transcaucasia" are widely used exonyms with no insulting or disparaging connotation. Similarly, "Zakarpattia" is "za" (="trans") from the Russian or Ukrainian point of view, but the term is currently more common and official than "Subcarpathian Ukraine" or "Carpathian Ruthenia".
- When we check the category interwikis, Nagorno-Karabakh keeps its former name in most (maybe all) of Wikipedia languages - Commons a bit deviates with its rename to Category:Artsakh. And the change was made inconsistently, some of Commons subcategories still use the old name. However, some languages have Artsakh as subcategories of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the Republic of Artsakh as a subitem of the geographic and historical term of Nagorno-Karabakh. Maybe, this approach is a bit inconsistent.
- I assume that most English users do not feel any offensive or Nazi connotations in the name "Transnistria" and use this name as a neutral name of the country. Possible associations do not follow from that name, but from the fact that it is an internationally unrecognized republic, which once had the reputation of a post-Soviet "Skansen of communism", and in addition, today it has many problems typical of the poorer countries of that region (corruption, oligarchy, flight of young population to other states etc.). Of course, I understand that history is complicated, and the current situation has its historical causes, political as well as ethnic. I don't think the name Transnistria is any worse from the global perspective than similar names of Zakarpattia or Transcaucasia. However, we can look for sources proving what this country is really called in independent English-language sources and what context and connotations which of these names has. If we accepted rename of Ceylon to Sri Lanka, or Barma to Myanmar etc. etc. (although many people use the old names), we can also reflect that Pridnestrovie does not want to be called Transnistria. (We Czechs use traditinally term "Podněstří" which is rather equivalent of "Pridnestrovie" than "Transnistria", but is rather our exonym than pure trancription of the original name. As I can see, most of Slavic countries has similar names for the country, but most of world countries use names based on the word "Transnistria", which is really an international name of the country.) --ŠJů (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's not about the authorities of Pridnestrovie. The problem is that this term is offensive, including to ordinary people. This is not related to the fact that supposedly in foreign languages there is a term that does not coincide with the original name. Firstly, it does not exist, and secondly, if the term does not carry any subtext, then what do we care? But “transnistria” - the term is absolutely not neutral and has a specific history, causes of origin and context.
- Indeed, in the Russian language there are such names as Transcarpathia, Transcaucasia, Transbaikail, etc., which were partially borrowed into foreign languages. The point is not in the prefix “за-” itself, but in relation to which side this “trans-” is used. We can see that here we are talking about the position of the region relative to the center of the country, therefore for the inhabitants themselves there can be nothing strange in such a name. If we are talking about "transnistria", then the prefix “trans-” here means exclusively the Romanian claim during Second World War to Bessarabia and Pridnestrovie itself.
- In the case of Artsakh, Wikipedia’s double standards are simply most clearly visible: how indifferent the Armenian name is and with what fury the Romanian name is defended.
- As for reputation and problems, a similar situation. The problems are exactly the same as in neighboring Moldova, in which the situation is even worse. But for some reason, a poor reputation only belongs to the unrecognized republic (which has the main part of the problems precisely because of the aggressive actions of Moldova).
- Maybe you wanted to say - “Most of Wikipedia’s sections use names based on the word "Transnistria"”? Because outside the borders of the former USSR, even a fraction of a percent of people have not heard about this region, and it makes no sense to say that there is some established term in the language. The author himself chooses the word he needs and in any case explains what is being discussed, otherwise the average person simply will not understand what is Pridnestrovie, Transnistria or something else. But the author himself knows what he wanted to say, and if he said "Transnistria", then either he sympathizes with the Romanian Nazis and hates Pridnestrovie, or simply reads the English Wikipedia. 217.19.208.103 05:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Articles may contain audio, visual, or written representations of people or events which may be protected by some cultures
- About Artsakh - The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. (Арца́х in Russian is uncommon POV-pushing name, like "Pridnestrovie" in English).
- Pridnestrovie: 498 000 results vs. Transnistria: 5 750 000 results = end of discussion.·Carn 16:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, but I doubt user:Pridnestrovian editor is open to arguments. Multichill (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am always ready for dialogue and accept reasonable arguments. But what is the talk about? Is this name a gross insult? Yes. Can you give an example of at least one country in English that would be offensive? This name means a completely different object - the Romanian occupation regime in the Odessa region of Ukraine during the Second World War? Yes. Does this term not correspond even in the literal translation to the object that you propose to name with its help? Not correspondend. What also arguments can there be?
- It's funny that you blocked me with the wording "intimidation / harassment". This shows just your level of readiness with dialogue. I am not persecuting anyone here, but I propose to make reasonable (even necessary) edits.
- As for the number of links in the search results: 95% is a reference to Wikipedia, which, using privileges in search results, has become a hotbed of this term, 5% is actually about "Transnistria governorate". An original approach: to spread false and hostile information on the Web, and then refer to them as well. Or is Wikipedia now defining English vocabulary? 217.19.216.238 05:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- You are struggling with windmills and doing POV-pushing. This discussion goes around in a circle because you don’t understand that your arguments about allegedly “insulting” name does not fit here. You are talking about events more than half a century ago, and about name on foreign language. ·Carn 18:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- This name does not exist in any foreign language, with the exception of Romanian. The reason is that almost no one has ever heard of this country abroad, therefore no term could have time to settle in the language. And the name cannot be official simply because officially such a state does not exist for foreign states (I wrote above that in real life this name is sometimes used only informally and in an insulting context). But spreading it online through Wikipedia is easy. Only I doubt that Wikipedia has the function of defining the names of countries and regions. Therefore, it seems to me sufficient arguments that this ugly word: 1) is an insult; 2) means completely different; 3) is not established in the languages; 4) there are laws of Pridnestrovie that describe its real name; 5) there is already a precedent of renaming without regard to the prevalence of the term on the Internet. And this is not a point of view, these are just dry facts. 217.19.216.224 04:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I doubt that Wikipedia has the function of defining the names of countries and regions. - Wikipedia has function to reflect sources, and you are trying to invent some name that would suit your strange tastes (your 1,2,3 "arguments"). As en:WP:COMMONNAME say - Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) so your 4th argument has no power too. About your unsuitable argument number 5, I already told you that other cases have no meaning in this particular case. ·Carn 13:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not a "common name", but a name often given out by search engines. How then did the Romanian nationalists drag their prejudiced term into Wikipedia even when there was practically no mention of Pridnestrovie on the Internet, and everyone had long forgotten about word "Transnistria"? Disseminate of this term on the Internet related with the privileges of Wikipedia in the search results. According to this logic, for example, the term "vagina" (293 000 000) should be replaced by "pussy" (1 170 000 000) that was promoted by pornographic sites. In qualitative terms, the situation is exactly the same. As for Artsakh, this is called double standards, hypocrisy and bias/POV. 217.19.216.224 19:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I doubt that Wikipedia has the function of defining the names of countries and regions. - Wikipedia has function to reflect sources, and you are trying to invent some name that would suit your strange tastes (your 1,2,3 "arguments"). As en:WP:COMMONNAME say - Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) so your 4th argument has no power too. About your unsuitable argument number 5, I already told you that other cases have no meaning in this particular case. ·Carn 13:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- This name does not exist in any foreign language, with the exception of Romanian. The reason is that almost no one has ever heard of this country abroad, therefore no term could have time to settle in the language. And the name cannot be official simply because officially such a state does not exist for foreign states (I wrote above that in real life this name is sometimes used only informally and in an insulting context). But spreading it online through Wikipedia is easy. Only I doubt that Wikipedia has the function of defining the names of countries and regions. Therefore, it seems to me sufficient arguments that this ugly word: 1) is an insult; 2) means completely different; 3) is not established in the languages; 4) there are laws of Pridnestrovie that describe its real name; 5) there is already a precedent of renaming without regard to the prevalence of the term on the Internet. And this is not a point of view, these are just dry facts. 217.19.216.224 04:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- You are struggling with windmills and doing POV-pushing. This discussion goes around in a circle because you don’t understand that your arguments about allegedly “insulting” name does not fit here. You are talking about events more than half a century ago, and about name on foreign language. ·Carn 18:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, but I doubt user:Pridnestrovian editor is open to arguments. Multichill (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Kept no consensus for deletion. Multichill (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q65787525 The subject of this item wants it deleted for the sake of privacy but first this category needs to be seleted Trade (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Trade: it seems that Delwar Hossain is withdrawed. See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2020/05/26#Q65787525 --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- I withdraw this, because solution My privacy problem. so I wan to keep it --— Delwar • 21:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Trade: withdrawal by user:DelwarHossain. Discussion is closed. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Je propose sa fusion avec Category:Jean Monnet Foundation for Europe, qui est identique. Gzzz zz 20:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gzzz: sounds logical. Merging is done. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
традиции,культура,еда,памятники 2A02:A03F:E45E:A400:55D6:EB47:E9BC:B3D8 10:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep The nomination, "traditions, culture, food, monuments", makes no sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
nonsense by anonym Estopedist1 (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
This category is empty and should be deleted. Another Believer (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Rename to Category:PDF files from German Wikiversity with correct capitalisation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- fine with me, I am the main user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bocardodarapti (talk • contribs) 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, seems uncontroversial. – BMacZero (🗩) 00:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
renamed @1234qwer1234qwer4 and BMacZero: Estopedist1 (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Rename to Category:SVG landscapes: Plural and correct capitalisation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
logical solution per @1234qwer1234qwer4: Estopedist1 (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Empty category, had only one entry that turned out not to be a CD anyway, now removed. Ubcule (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
מנחם קאליש (ב) שוורצבורד (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Nothing to discuss. Seems to be accidental by creator Estopedist1 (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Not necessary. We should have a button for requesting deletion of unnecessary cats (not referring to SD). E4024 (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete @E4024: . Second question: I think CFD does the job when we want to delete categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024 and Estopedist1: For obvious deletions where no discussion is needed, it would be better to just add {{Speedy}}. However, this category appears to have a number of relevant files in its child categories, so it appears useful to me. Why is this category unnecessary? – BMacZero (🗩) 16:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- @BMacZero and E4024: of course, if we are dealing with obvious deletions, no CFD is needed. I do not like topical categories related to file types (see {{Catsbyfiletype}}), but it seems that community like exception for SVG files. So, withdrawal by me. This discussion can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: it is populated category. To be keeped now?--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Do as you wish; however "SVG people" etc sound strange to me... --E4024 (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: "SVG people" is in consistent with "category:SVG by subject" (see categories names there). But this is other topic. I am closing this discussion--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Do as you wish; however "SVG people" etc sound strange to me... --E4024 (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: it is populated category. To be keeped now?--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- @BMacZero and E4024: of course, if we are dealing with obvious deletions, no CFD is needed. I do not like topical categories related to file types (see {{Catsbyfiletype}}), but it seems that community like exception for SVG files. So, withdrawal by me. This discussion can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept. Populated category Estopedist1 (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Empty category and duplicate for Category:Greek Chapels on Holy Sepulchre parvis Fallaner (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Done - I made it an RD. --E4024 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Fallaner and E4024: "Category:Greek Chapels on Holy Sepulchre parvis of John the Baptist" is a redirect. (In addition, user:E4024 try not to use ambigious abbreviation "RD". I guess it means redirect. Discussion closed. Estopedist1 (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Was part of an over-categorization that has since been remedied, unecessary IJReid (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Was part of an overcategorization that has been remedied, does not include any content (subcat also nominated and empty) and not necessary IJReid (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Result of overcategorization that has been corrected, empty and will not contain anything in future IJReid (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Result of remedied over-categorization and both unused and not intended to be used in future IJReid (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see the over-categorization, and it's unused you've personally removed the content without discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
deleted as cat still empty; can be recreated if there is need. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Notability - seems to be nowhere near any criteria [[User:|S a g a C i t y]] (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- The sole image has several similar categories applied to it. I agree that none of these categories are necessary. The image should go in a more generic category instead. – User:BMacZero (🗩) 16:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Saga City and BMacZero: deleted this category from Yonsei-KOICA Scholarship Program Hoengseong Fire Station disaster psychology education and football game and File:Yonsei-KOICA Scholarship Program Hoengseong Fire Station disaster psychology education IMG 5421.jpg. Now empty, to be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Rename Category:Senja (island) to avoid confusion with Category:Senja kommune. Themightyquill (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
solution per user:Themightyquill: cat:Senja is DAB now. Discussion closed. Estopedist1 (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Redundant category, should be deleted JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Additional: All relevant files have been moved to Category:Photographs of roads by User:RioHondo, to be consistent with other related categories. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Empty duplicate to Category:Danmarksgade (Ålborg) Liberaler Humanist (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete but @Liberaler Humanist: I think this qualifies as a speedy with Template:Bad name. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)- @Liberaler Humanist and Ricky81682: Category:Danmarksgade (Ålborg) should be the redirect to Category:Danmarksgade (Aalborg). This task is given to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- In retrospect, it seems like keep and reverse redirect to Aalborg makes more sense. I see that the city category is Category:Aalborg so it should be consistent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Done: Category:Danmarksgade (Ålborg) moved to Category:Danmarksgade (Aalborg). --Achim (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Requesting move to Category:Old Library (Bryn Mawr College). As per the linked Wikipedia entry, the building was renamed in 2018. Conifer (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Move. This can probably just be done; I don't think using the new name is controversial (and I'm not sure why I used the existing name, anyway). kennethaw88 • talk 03:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
non-controversial move, same solution in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Is Category:Post of prisoners of war not redundant with Category:Prisoner of war mail? -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yes, it looks like a grammatically-awkward duplicate to me. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Prisoner of war mail. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Should the category be renamed due to changed name of the museum, also: Category:Musée des Tissus, or Category:Textile Arts Museum (that's their official new English name)? Fuchs B (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Fuchs B: over two weeks no objection. French name is a redirect. Solution per their's website and enwiki--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
There was a duplicate file in this category. The first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy says:
- "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media".
The word "pages" and "media" are plural meaning that categories should have two or more files as members. This category does not have two or more files. If we find a second file to go here, there is no objection to recreating the category. FredWalsh (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Flower Tucci in 2011 for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Flower Tucci in 2011 Estopedist1 (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Flower Tucci in 2011 for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Flower Tucci in 2011 Estopedist1 (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of the number of media available, each notable person should systematically have her own category. In the categories place of birth, year of birth, profession, school attended... it's much cleaner to have sub-categories with people's names rather than thousands of photos in bulk. Okki (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Okki: This is your personal feeling but it is not the policy agreed by the Commons community. If you wish to change the policy, please request it in an RFC. FredWalsh (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of the number of media available, each notable person should systematically have her own category. In the categories place of birth, year of birth, profession, school attended... it's much cleaner to have sub-categories with people's names rather than thousands of photos in bulk. Okki (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is your personal feeling but it is not the policy agreed by the Commons community. If you wish to change the policy, please request it in an RFC. FredWalsh (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of the number of media available, each notable person should systematically have her own category. In the categories place of birth, year of birth, profession, school attended... it's much cleaner to have sub-categories with people's names rather than thousands of photos in bulk. Okki (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is your personal feeling but it is not the policy agreed by the Commons community. If you wish to change the policy, please request it in an RFC. FredWalsh (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of the number of media available, each notable person should systematically have her own category. In the categories place of birth, year of birth, profession, school attended... it's much cleaner to have sub-categories with people's names rather than thousands of photos in bulk. Okki (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is your personal feeling but it is not the policy agreed by the Commons community. If you wish to change the policy, please request it in an RFC. FredWalsh (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of the number of media available, each notable person should systematically have her own category. In the categories place of birth, year of birth, profession, school attended... it's much cleaner to have sub-categories with people's names rather than thousands of photos in bulk. Okki (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is your personal feeling but it is not the policy agreed by the Commons community. If you wish to change the policy, please request it in an RFC. FredWalsh (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of the number of media available, each notable person should systematically have her own category. In the categories place of birth, year of birth, profession, school attended... it's much cleaner to have sub-categories with people's names rather than thousands of photos in bulk. Okki (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is your personal feeling but it is not the policy agreed by the Commons community. If you wish to change the policy, please request it in an RFC. FredWalsh (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of the number of media available, each notable person should systematically have her own category. In the categories place of birth, year of birth, profession, school attended... it's much cleaner to have sub-categories with people's names rather than thousands of photos in bulk. Okki (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is your personal feeling but it is not the policy agreed by the Commons community. If you wish to change the policy, please request it in an RFC. FredWalsh (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of the number of media available, each notable person should systematically have her own category. In the categories place of birth, year of birth, profession, school attended... it's much cleaner to have sub-categories with people's names rather than thousands of photos in bulk. Okki (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is your personal feeling but it is not the policy agreed by the Commons community. If you wish to change the policy, please request it in an RFC. FredWalsh (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of the number of media available, each notable person should systematically have her own category. In the categories place of birth, year of birth, profession, school attended... it's much cleaner to have sub-categories with people's names rather than thousands of photos in bulk. Okki (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is your personal feeling but it is not the policy agreed by the Commons community. If you wish to change the policy, please request it in an RFC. FredWalsh (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of the number of media available, each notable person should systematically have her own category. In the categories place of birth, year of birth, profession, school attended... it's much cleaner to have sub-categories with people's names rather than thousands of photos in bulk. Okki (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is your personal feeling but it is not the policy agreed by the Commons community. If you wish to change the policy, please request it in an RFC. FredWalsh (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of the number of media available, each notable person should systematically have her own category. In the categories place of birth, year of birth, profession, school attended... it's much cleaner to have sub-categories with people's names rather than thousands of photos in bulk. Okki (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is your personal feeling but it is not the policy agreed by the Commons community. If you wish to change the policy, please request it in an RFC. FredWalsh (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of the number of media available, each notable person should systematically have her own category. In the categories place of birth, year of birth, profession, school attended... it's much cleaner to have sub-categories with people's names rather than thousands of photos in bulk. Okki (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is your personal feeling but it is not the policy agreed by the Commons community. If you wish to change the policy, please request it in an RFC. FredWalsh (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of the number of media available, each notable person should systematically have her own category. In the categories place of birth, year of birth, profession, school attended... it's much cleaner to have sub-categories with people's names rather than thousands of photos in bulk. Okki (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- My response to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Kristina St. James also applies to this discussion. In summary: Keep – BMacZero (🗩) 04:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please direct further discussion of this category to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu for centralization. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged discussions to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu Estopedist1 (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Created this before noticing that the existing 'Dassault Mirage F1CG' category serves the same purpose Loco70 (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
{{delete|reason=Redundant|subpage=Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:F1CG (Hellenic Air Force)|year=2020|month=May|day=22}}
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
bad name. To be merged to category:Memorials of the Great Patriotic War or its subcategories? Estopedist1 (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Why is 2 a number here? There is no 2 women category, 2 children, ... Mjrmtg (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Two men per Category:Two women and Category:Two children. FredWalsh (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- On the contrary, rename instead Category:Two women and Category:Two children to Category:2 women and Category:2 children, as discussed. (Actually, not exactly rename, rather keep renaming, as lots of cat names with unyieldly spelled out numbers have been replaced by their numeral counterparts in the last months — e.g. Category:Groups of twelve become Category:Groups of 12.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds fine to me as long as we keep category redirects. FredWalsh (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep the system "NUMBER Foo", like user:Joshbaumgartner is massively done in the last months--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep number (2) vs. (two). This is the most clear and consistent way to express quantities. It allows greater accessibility for users, especially non-English speakers. It is much easier to consistently use templates, functions, and modules with. I have linked some related recent CfDs above. Josh (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus. @Mjrmtg, Joshbaumgartner, Tuvalkin, and FredWalsh: Estopedist1 (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Result of remedied over-categorization and both unused and not intended to be used in future IJReid (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Result of remedied over-categorization and both unused and not intended to be used in future IJReid (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Result of remedied over-categorization and both unused and not intended to be used in future IJReid (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Result of remedied over-categorization and both unused and not intended to be used in future IJReid (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Result of remedied over-categorization and both unused and not intended to be used in future IJReid (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Result of remedied over-categorization and both unused and not intended to be used in future IJReid (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Result of remedied over-categorization and both unused and not intended to be used in future IJReid (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Result of remedied over-categorization and both unused and not intended to be used in future IJReid (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Result of remedied over-categorization and both unused and not intended to be used in future IJReid (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Result of remedied over-categorization and both unused and not intended to be used in future IJReid (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Result of remedied over-categorization and both unused and not intended to be used in future IJReid (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I took this cat to discussion because the capital letter in "Bulls" was strange but I was refuted due to another mistake at the EN:WP. Now I see that the EN:WP article has the title "Running of the bulls". (Be sure I did not move it. :) Take the opportunity to find a better name, like "Bull running", no I do not mean "bull-running". E4024 (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- I made a fix. Evrik (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Next time better wait for the discussion to produce a consensus, "please". --E4024 (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Evrik and E4024: can we close this discussion? Category:Running of the Bulls is redirected to "Running of the bulls". Solution per enwiki --Estopedist1 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please close this. Evrik (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Be my guest. --E4024 (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Evrik and E4024: can we close this discussion? Category:Running of the Bulls is redirected to "Running of the bulls". Solution per enwiki --Estopedist1 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
solution per enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
self promotional spam. out of scope. all items nominated. Quakewoody (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Then wait for the files to be deleted first, if that's done this can automatically be deleted but otherwise a category with 9 files seems viable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Crouch, Swale: Yet, this is a cross-wiki spam case. If the images aren't deleted, I don't think it is good not to delete the category. Esteban16 (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes it can be speedily deleted anyway, there's is no need for a CFD. I will tag it for speedy deletion if the files are deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- files are now deleted. So is the Wikidata item which was used as an infobox. Quakewoody (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- all files and wikidata items have again been deleted. Quakewoody (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Category:Ancient Greek pottery oinochoes and Category:Ancient Greek oinochoes? Do we really need both? I think they are all pottery, aren't they? E4024 (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. Because of Oinochoes could be made also of other materials as glas and metalls. Would be much easier, if you would have asked me first. I'm working on the category system in this field since a long time and I know, what I'm doing. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Then close the discussion, no need to remind me that I do not know what I am doing; I'm already aware of it. Sorry, this came out to be another cat opened by an admin... --E4024 (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Marcus. I thought you might show, as you're a significant contributor of the photos and also a collector. I got no plans to change your major categories. I regard you as the major figure on it. With regard to material, there are not very many metallic, glass or stone items, not enough to subcategorize. Most are terra cotta. I noticed there were over 300 ancient Greek potteries and the only other category near it was Etruscan. The existing subcategorization collected some by museum and some of those by museeum ID, where there was one. I continued that and am continuing it. I wasn't sure where they should go, but some were under ancient Greek oinochoes, so I put them there. They could as well have gone under the ancient Greek pottery, as the metals, glass, and stone I had put under Oinochoes so ancient Greek pottery and ancient Greek were the same topic virtually though not conceptually. If there were more other materials, the situation might appear differently, but there are not. Stone oinochoes are not even pourers. It was at this point I discovered a problem with some of your pictures, and probably with your collection. You don't state where they are from or where you got them. It looks as though you do not know. There is a request on many for an identification. But there are thousnads of items on the common market and no one knows where they came from. Also, someone had created the category Corinthian, which is a legitimate division. Your unidentified seemed to be all Attic, so I created an Attic in parallel with Corinthian. This event suggested we place this division under Ancient Greek pottery so we don't have to have two major divisions under the same category. Well, it is a complex situation. The original ideas of division by material and division by nationality are great and valid, but how shall we combine them? Well it will take you some time to digest all this and then to make your decisions. I doubt we will have to uncategorize anything I did as my categories only collect the same things: the same museum, the same pot. That is pretty well it. I did edd a few more ethnicities. So, I repeat what E4024 said, don't keep us waiting too long.Botteville (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- there are not very many metallic, glass or stone items, not enough to subcategorize - this is simply not true. There are only not al categorized correct yet. And I never heard about a minimum number of items in a category. And finally without this category here, the whole system of pottery categorization would break. This is so frustrating, that we need to discuss this here. To sort in material groups is one standard procedure in archaeology. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- There is nothing "frustrating. Just close the discussion. I am withdrawing it. Sorry, my mistake. --E4024 (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Fine, Marcus. I did find it a bit frustrating, but there issues are entitled to come up. There are so many different ways to categorize. I never get contentious about categories, although I do about article content. Any way you want to do it is fine with me. My intent was to satisfy the implied requirements of the WP article, oenochoe. I think I have done that now. The only real errors I found were native Italic pottery being presented as ancient Greek. This is difficult because the Italics not only imitated the Greeks but they used a lot of imported Greek pottery. "Oenochoe" came to my attention when I found some neglected sketches of Trojan pottery. I might add some of those but in general I am getting off this topic. No, it does not have to be done "my way." Do it your way. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- there are not very many metallic, glass or stone items, not enough to subcategorize - this is simply not true. There are only not al categorized correct yet. And I never heard about a minimum number of items in a category. And finally without this category here, the whole system of pottery categorization would break. This is so frustrating, that we need to discuss this here. To sort in material groups is one standard procedure in archaeology. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Marcus. I thought you might show, as you're a significant contributor of the photos and also a collector. I got no plans to change your major categories. I regard you as the major figure on it. With regard to material, there are not very many metallic, glass or stone items, not enough to subcategorize. Most are terra cotta. I noticed there were over 300 ancient Greek potteries and the only other category near it was Etruscan. The existing subcategorization collected some by museum and some of those by museeum ID, where there was one. I continued that and am continuing it. I wasn't sure where they should go, but some were under ancient Greek oinochoes, so I put them there. They could as well have gone under the ancient Greek pottery, as the metals, glass, and stone I had put under Oinochoes so ancient Greek pottery and ancient Greek were the same topic virtually though not conceptually. If there were more other materials, the situation might appear differently, but there are not. Stone oinochoes are not even pourers. It was at this point I discovered a problem with some of your pictures, and probably with your collection. You don't state where they are from or where you got them. It looks as though you do not know. There is a request on many for an identification. But there are thousnads of items on the common market and no one knows where they came from. Also, someone had created the category Corinthian, which is a legitimate division. Your unidentified seemed to be all Attic, so I created an Attic in parallel with Corinthian. This event suggested we place this division under Ancient Greek pottery so we don't have to have two major divisions under the same category. Well, it is a complex situation. The original ideas of division by material and division by nationality are great and valid, but how shall we combine them? Well it will take you some time to digest all this and then to make your decisions. I doubt we will have to uncategorize anything I did as my categories only collect the same things: the same museum, the same pot. That is pretty well it. I did edd a few more ethnicities. So, I repeat what E4024 said, don't keep us waiting too long.Botteville (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Then close the discussion, no need to remind me that I do not know what I am doing; I'm already aware of it. Sorry, this came out to be another cat opened by an admin... --E4024 (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Closed. E4024 (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Alfred Kiefer: could you explain? Which Normdatei?--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Alfred Kiefer: Mike Peel hat zwei Wikidata-Objekte zusammengeführt; ist das Problem nunmehr behoben? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've just double-checked, and everything looks OK to me? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guess so. The nominator created this CfD due to the category being linked to a "wrong item" apparently. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've just double-checked, and everything looks OK to me? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Not done: issue addressed. --ƏXPLICIT 06:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
All of the members of this category are copyright violations, so this will soon be an empty cat. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Since deleting an empty category doesn't require discussion, I'd suggest you close this discussion and add a note on the DR for the closing admin to also delete the category. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 06:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't this category read "Cracker Barrels by state" instead of Cracker Barrel's? (and all of the subcategories)? Mjrmtg (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- There's no apostrophe in the brand name as depicted on it premises. It's not a possessive.
Support renaming to Cracker Barrel by state. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC) - Support renaming this cat and its subcats as described by Rodhullandemu. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe the category should be Cracker Barrel restaurants in the United States like Taco Bell restaurants in the United States? --Mjrmtg (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- That makes sense to me. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Mjrmtg. It's consistent and distinguishes this from a category that might contain literal cracker barrels. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Done: using "Cracker Barrel restaurants" per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 06:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Category:Photographs of national flags by country and other flag subcategories
[edit]I really need your help. These subcategories (half of them are created by me) needs a huge major cleanup but half of these categories needed to be deleted as they are useless anymore. Most of images in these subcategories that had flags are less prominent than other objects (such as traffic lights). Also, most of these subcategories I had crated are based on List of administrative divisions by country. If anyone who likes flags or uploaded pictures with flags on it are welcome to clean these categories up. Everyone is also welcome to create subcategories based on List of administrative divisions by country (including city, town, village, etc.) Thanks. I know this is unusual for a CFD to request big cleanups but I need the help of other users nor admins because it going to take me days, weeks, months, years or even decades to clean these categories. It's not just national flags but also historical flags and other flags such as LGBT flags and military flags too. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Cancel my CFD nom for this. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done: withdrawn. --ƏXPLICIT 06:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
These subcategories are now considered unless. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Cancel the CFD please. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done: withdrawn. --ƏXPLICIT 06:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The subcategories with "....by country" needs cleanup (some sort of reorganization). SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Cancel this nomination SpinnerLaserz (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done: withdrawn. --ƏXPLICIT 06:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
should be renamed, because it is the user category. category:Aaks redirects here, but it is also bad name Estopedist1 (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Haseeb mk: actually, it is not an user category. It seems that there are three random images? Category to be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 06:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I just removed several alcohol-related images from this category. Can this page be renamed (maybe Category:Tonic (music)) and this title made into a disambiguation category? It could contain:
--Auntof6 (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Tonic water 47,737 views compared to 6,805 for the music and 4,504 for the band[[1]]. I don't think this is controversial so you could probably just have done it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support. See no disadvantages. Hyacinth (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. However, please wait to implement the suggested changes until the discussion is closed. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- The text in {{Category for discussion}} should be updated from, "Please do not make major changes to this category or remove this notice until the discussion has been closed." to, "Please do not make major changes to this category, nor categories and page related to this discussion, or remove this notice until the discussion has been closed." Hyacinth (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Hyacinth and Auntof6: cat:Tonic to DAB, same in enwiki. User:Hyacinth's request to change CFD-related wording is beyond this discussion.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1 and Auntof6: I didn't make a request, I made a suggestion, which I have also made on Template talk:Category for discussion#Rewording. Hyacinth (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Hyacinth and Auntof6: cat:Tonic to DAB, same in enwiki. User:Hyacinth's request to change CFD-related wording is beyond this discussion.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- The text in {{Category for discussion}} should be updated from, "Please do not make major changes to this category or remove this notice until the discussion has been closed." to, "Please do not make major changes to this category, nor categories and page related to this discussion, or remove this notice until the discussion has been closed." Hyacinth (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. However, please wait to implement the suggested changes until the discussion is closed. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 06:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Frankly I am getting bored of IPs imposing their personal choices on topics that are subject to lengthy discussions here. If someone is ready to open a "principle discussion" to prohibit opening new cats to IPs I will be the first to support. This is lack of regard and respect for the Commoners. No, I will not say anything about the contents of the cat. We have discussed these things a lot here and if a new cat will be opened that must be made based on a consensus. Therefore I propose to delete this new cat on procedural basis. E4024 (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think this is not a good classification. For our purposes, I believe we use age 18 as the beginning of adulthood. The definitions of age groups on Category:Babies (female) and related categories are better than including teenagers under young adults. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete for the same reason as Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:North Britain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 06:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Non-user أمين (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- @أمين: This seems like a case where a redirect is useful and appropriate. Is it possible people will search for Al-Aqsa Mosque instead of Al-Qibli Chapel? – BMacZero (🗩) 16:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
No response from nominator, closing. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
There exists a disagreement whether this should stay as a per-event category or if a per-year category is sufficient. See previous discussion. AFBorchert (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've opened this CFD discussion per this request by Xxlfussel as the category is currently protected. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Category is part of a larger subcategorization system (see Category:Lugers at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics), which should be consistent in itself. A sub-categorization according to competition is useful for the luge athletes, since many pictures from past years already exist and it is to be expected that pictures will be added this year as well. --Sandro Halank (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) Invalid CfD, there are plenty of similar categories for the other participants. Due to consistency reasons, this should be a quick close. A CfD for all categories might be possible but then it would make more sense to expand the discussion to all athletes of the event.
If we would really bring this into discussion, that would destroy the categorization work for the whole project which is in its size and approach only comparable to the 2018 Sommer Youth Olympics. More than 1,000 different photos are used of these events for articles about the matches of the events and their athletes (2018, 2020). Of course, because of the relevance of the event (Olympics!) sub-categories for athletes should be available for easier re-use of the photos of this specific event. It makes absolutely no sense not to sort the appearances of athletes by this event but only by year as there are also photos from other events in the same year for a variety of athletes. It's absolutely fine to have both categories, like Category:Martin Rulsch at WikiCon 2017 and Category:Martin Rulsch in 2017, Category:October 12, 2007 Lech Kaczyński and Angela Merkel and Category:Angela Merkel in 2007, and so on—if anyone wants to create the categories by year, they are of course invited to do this. But for consistency reasons, there should be categories for every athlete then as well. It is obvious that not all of these things could have been done since the event happened because it takes a long time for post-processing, uploading, categorization, etc. Intervening this process now by putting one or the other category into question, does not make much sense. We ask for patience and respect for our work. —DerHexer (Talk) 07:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)- (Edit conflict) This CfD is not invalid. Instead, this path should always be open for a consensual discussion. A possible outcome could be the resolution that a structural change affects more categories and that a more broad CfD is required. But this does not make this CfD invalid. Please keep in mind that we should encourage open discussions and discourage edit wars. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Did you read my second paragraph? :) It refers to broader discussion of the topic. But I stay with my argument that it does not make much sense to talk about one single category within a huge category system like the YOG one as it seems to be intended here. I think that it is possible to call this disruptive and the taken steps as invalid but of course, we can disagree on that. As indicated, the proposed structural change would in the end not only affect this YOG category tree but plenty more when we should not have (consistent) categories for people at events anymore. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I've read your entire comment. I guess you read my last sentence as well which addressed this point :) Whether a CfD can be opened or not is not dependent on the likeliness of its success. Please keep in mind that I am neutral here as an admin who isn't involved in this conflict. I've opened this CfD per my closure at COM:AN/U and per this request on strict procedural grounds. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Did you read my second paragraph? :) It refers to broader discussion of the topic. But I stay with my argument that it does not make much sense to talk about one single category within a huge category system like the YOG one as it seems to be intended here. I think that it is possible to call this disruptive and the taken steps as invalid but of course, we can disagree on that. As indicated, the proposed structural change would in the end not only affect this YOG category tree but plenty more when we should not have (consistent) categories for people at events anymore. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) This CfD is not invalid. Instead, this path should always be open for a consensual discussion. A possible outcome could be the resolution that a structural change affects more categories and that a more broad CfD is required. But this does not make this CfD invalid. Please keep in mind that we should encourage open discussions and discourage edit wars. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Why ever is Xxlfussel really obsessed with this category. But it is part of a completely coherent system of categorization. There is not even a valid reason to approach this system. All participants in the Youth Olympic Games that were photographed should get such a category. It is a sensible and well thought-out system. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Da die Diskussion auf COM:AN/U für beendet erklärt wurde, habe ich gegeben, dass hier eine neue Diskussion eröffnet wird. Wie man an den ersten Kommentaren von euch erkennt, stößt dies nicht wirklich auf Gegenliebe. Aber dafür ist CfD nun mal da, ob ihr wollt oder nicht.
- Thema „Zulässigkeit der CfD“: Ich sehe hier überhaupt keinen Grund, warum diese Diskussion hier ungültig sein soll. Es steht doch selbst in der Vorlage „Category for discussion“ der Satz:
Die Diskussion findet unter Einbeziehung ähnlicher Kategorien statt.
— in: Vorlage Category for discussion
- Nichtsdestotrotz kannst du, DerHexer natürlich, wenn du es für nötig erhältst, auch eine Diskussion für alle Kategorien des Typs „<Name> at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“ oder des Typs „<Name> at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics“ erstellen. Gegen eine solche große Diskussion habe ich auch nichts einzuwenden. In Übrigen kann ich deine folgende Aussage nicht ganz nachvollziehen:
It is obvious that not all of these things could have been done since the event happened because it takes a long time for post-processing, uploading, categorization, etc. Intervening this process now by putting one or the other category into question, does not make much sense.
— DerHexer
- Wenn ich mal ein wenig übertrieben formuliere, heißt das: „Ihr erstellt weiterhin die falschen Kategorien und erst wenn alle erstellt ist, darf man es wieder ordentlich machen.“ Das wäre erstmal sinnlos. Natürlich ist jetzt der richtige Zeitpunkt zur Diskussion, denn, wenn man nun eine Lösung bzw. Kompromiss findet, erspart das euch Arbeit genauso wie es mir auch Arbeit erspart. Damit wird kein Projekt zerstört, sondern einen Projekt nur geholfen.
- Thema „Konsistenzgründe“: Ihr sprecht immer davon, dass das Kategorie-System ja konsistent sein muss. Das war es bisher ja auch, aber seid den Olympischen Jugend-Sommerspielen 2018 arbeitet ihr ja dagegen und stellt damit die bisherige Vorgehensweise in Frage, obwohl die sehr viele Vorteile hat. Diese Vorteile habe ich auch schon in COM:AN/U beschrieben und zu diesen Stehe ich auch weiterhin.
- Thema „Sortierung nach Jahr/Wettbewerb“: Auf COM:AN/U habe ich mich zu diesen Thema ja auch bereits zu Wort gemeldet. Ich sehe es auch so, dass sich Sortierung nach Wettbewerb und Sortierung nach Jahr nicht ausschließen. Bei Selena Egle ist aber sowohl keine Sortierung nach Wettbewerb als auch nach Jahr notwendig, da es sich ja nur um zwei Bilder handelt und sich die Frage stellt, ob überhaupt noch weitere Bilder dazu kommen. Auf COM:AN/U wurde mit Félix Dolci von DerHexer ein anderer Sportler in die Diskussion eingebracht Bei ist es sowohl sinnvoll ihn nach Jahr als auch nach Wettbewerb zu sortieren. Warum ich das so sehe habe ich dort lang und breit erklärt und habe zudem auch einen Kritikpunkt geäußert. Ich würde nun noch gerne ein drittes Beispiel nennen. Bei der deutschen Rennrodlerin Merle Fräbel ist es so, dass – aus meiner Sicht – die Sortierung nach Jahr sinnvoll ist, aber nach Wettbewerb nicht bzw. noch nicht, da ja noch neue Bilder dazukommen könnten. Dann wäre möglicherweise eine Sortierung nach Wettbewerb vielleicht auch angebracht.
- Thema „Sortierschlüssel“: In einen Beitrag hatte Sandro Halank auch kritisiert, dass die Bilder in der Jahreskategorie durcheinander gewürfelt werden, wenn es Bilder von mehreren Rennen gibt oder von einen Wettbewerb und einer öffentlichen Veranstaltung. Das es dies gibt, will ich nicht wegdiskutieren, sondern ich würde sogar ein Beispiel dafür nennen. Zum Beispiel ist das nämlich so bei der Kategorie „Jacqueline Lölling in 2018“. Wie kann man das ändern. Aus meiner Sicht ist es ganz einfach. Denn wozu gibt es denn die Möglichkeit des Sortierschlüssels. Damit kann man sogar hinbekommen, dass das Bild mit den Namen „2018-12-22 Victory ceremonies at German Skeleton Championships 2018-19 by Sandro Halank–025.jpg“ hinter das Bild mit den Namen „2018-12-22 Women's competition (1st run) at German Skeleton Championships 2018-19 by Sandro Halank–126.jpg“ sortiert wird. Natürlich ist das Arbeit, aber sowas ist immer Arbeit.
- Thema „neue Bilder“: Ich sehe diese Erwartung nicht unbedingt. Im Rodeln sind möglicherweise weitere Bilder zu erwarten, aber zum Beispiel in Skeleton nicht, oder habt ihr und Wikimedia Deutschland bzw. Wikimedia Österreich in diesen Jahr vor eine Akkreditierung für die Rennen im Europacup oder die Intercontinentalcup zu erwerben. Denn nämlich nur dort könnte man rein theoretisch die Skeletonpilotinnen und Skeletonpiloten von den Jugend-Winterspielen 2020 mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit antreffen, wenn sie nicht ihre Karriere nach den Olympischen Jugend-Winterspielen direkt beendete haben, wie es zum Beispiel mehrfach vor vier Jahren der Fall war.
- Das wäre mein erste Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion und ich möchte nochmal hinzufügen, dass ich kein Projekt zerstören will, sondern dass ich nur ein – aus meiner Sicht – falsche Umsetzung anprangere und das ist hier auf Wikimedia Commons und hier in diesen Abschnitt mein gutes Recht. --Xxlfussel (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I had last year an accreditation for Bobsport European Cup in Altenberg. This year for Skeleton would be an absolute possibility. So, your argumentation did not work. Once more. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Das freut mich zu hören. Aber irgendwas muss ja dazwischengekommen sein. Jedenfalls bisher sind ja noch Bilder davon hochgeladen wurde, obwohl das eigentlich sehr cool wäre. Dann würde es wahrscheinlich für Wikipedia auch „Gesichtsbilder“ von Andreea Greecu geben, da sie ja dort gemeinsam mit Katharina Wick gewonnen hat und somit ja auf den Treppchen gestanden hat. Nun zum zweiten Teil deiner Aussage: Inwieweit macht das meine Argumentation zunichte? Diese Aussage müsstest du mir bitte mal genauer erklären. --Xxlfussel (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Es steht und fällt hier, was man unter Konsistenz versteht: Ich spreche hier von Konsistenz innerhalb des Kategorienbaumes unter YOG 2020 – ein System, das augenscheinlich Person bei Veranstaltung X enthält, das, wie für Personen aus anderen Bereichen dargestellt, nun wirklich keine Erfindung von uns ist, und auch nicht für YOG 2018 war. Da wäre es für mich tatsächlich sehr verwirrend, wenn in Category:Lugers at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics neben Peter Müller die Kategorie Hans Franz in 2017 oder Erika Musterfrau at the 2020 Youth Olympic Games stünde, statt konsistent at …. Dieses Nebeneinander wäre dann, unnötigerweise, der Fall bei unzähligen weiteren Kategorienbäumen auf ganz Commons, auch außerhalb des hier Besprochenen. Oder haben wir hier schon einen Dissens?
- Wie geschrieben spricht unsererseits nichts gegen (1) Max Mustermann -> (2) Max Mustermann in 2020 -> (3) Max Mustermann at 2020 Winter Youth Olympics. Dass für manche erst (1) oder (3) angelegt ist, wurde mit den beginnenden Arbeiten begründet. So erklärt sich auch, wieso „erst“ 167 Personen von 413 die Unterkategorien mit (3) haben. Für Lugers gibt es sie halt schon, weil es für diese näherliegend war, weil es für einige von ihnen schon andere Bilder gibt. So wird die Nutzung durch direkte Ansteuerung der Bilder von diesem Ereignis, auch in Wikipedia über präzisere Kategorien, vereinfacht – aber auch außerhalb ist es für die Beteiligten und andere viel einfacher, die Bilder der Person bei dem Event zu finden und nachzunutzen, eben weil man diese Bilder direkt ansteuern kann; je Person, Event, Wettkampfteil sogar, was für die Feinheit der Darstellung bspw. in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hilfreich ist (Seiten wie en:Gymnastics at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' artistic qualification oder en:2019 Junior World Artistic Gymnastics Championships wurden auch gar nicht von uns in dieser Feinheit angelegt, profitieren jetzt aber merklich davon; Medaillengewinner der Jugendolympiade sind dort übrigens relevant und der Nutzen der Bilder hoffentlich unbestritten). Für mich war (2) bisher nur dann ein Thema, wenn es zu viele Unterkategorien für die Person gab. Bei Category:Félix Dolci ist ja deutlich das Jahr auch aus den Kategorienamen erkennbar; eine Reihenfolge der Kategorien einfach möglich durch angepasstes Defaultsort. Dieses Vorgehen sehe ich bei vielen anderen Commons-Kategorien, sogar mit deutlich mehr Unterkategorien, derartig gelöst; Beispiel: Category:Wikimedia Deutschland, wo Category:2018 Zukunftsprozess - Wikimedia Deutschland unter 2 einsortiert ist und nicht ein Wikimedia Deutschland in 2018 – was nicht heißen soll, dass man dies auch so sortieren kann. So wie es bei Category:Martin Rulsch mit in 20XX auch jemand irgendwann einfach so gemacht hat, obwohl es Unterkategorien nach Person bei Event vorher schon gab – und natürlich wurden diese nicht gelöscht, weil sie ja sinnvoller Teil eines anderen Kategorienbaumes sind.
- Dies könnte auch hier bei Selina Egle natürlich gemacht werden, aber doch bitte nicht unter Entfernung der Kategorie, die im System mit … at the 2020 Youth Olympics in anderen Überkategorien eingeordnet ist. Diese Form der Konsistenz in Frage zu stellen, irritiert mich tatsächlich ziemlich stark. Diese Arbeit mit (3) wollen wir uns machen, weil wir die dargestellten Vorteile davon bedienen wollen. Und ja, ich denke, die Arbeit für (2) hätte man sich bei Selina Egle tatsächlich sparen können, da dies hier keinen Mehrwert gibt und, in der Tat, nur unnötigerweise den Baum aufbläht. Bei anderen Personen kann solch eine Kategorie jedoch natürlich für zusätzliche Übersichtlichkeit sorgen. Anscheinend herrschte aber genau hier den Dissens darüber, ob es solche (3)-Kategorien überhaupt geben sollte bzw. die Behauptung, dass wir dies gar für diese Events erfunden hätten. Der Belege gab es nun hoffentlich genüge, dass dies auf Commons vollkommen üblich ist und keineswegs eine Erfindung von uns.
- Es steht vielleicht nun noch zur Diskussion (daher meine Frage, worüber wir hier eigentlich reden: Selina Egle oder allgemeiner), dass man unter Umständen die Bilder in den ein oder zwei Ebenen unter der Personen(1)-Kategorie noch fände. Das ist tatsächlich ein kategorienbedingtes Problem, das aber nicht nur in diesem Fall auftritt. Mehrere Möglichkeiten, auch hier Lösungen zu finden: Es spräche m. E. einerseits nichts dagegen, (2) und (3) unter (1) auf eine Ebene zu ziehen (ggf. mit einer X at event/competitions mit Unterkategorie X at 2020 Winter Youth Olympics, sofern es natürlich mehrere Wettkämpfe gab – auch dies habe ich schon mehrfach auf Commons gesehen). So wäre sowohl eine Sortierung nach Jahr, als auch nach Event abgedeckt. Selbstverständlich für größere Kategorienbäume als die von Selina Egle. Ich habe letztlich auch schon Personen-Kategorien gesehen, wo Bilder gleichzeitig in der Überkategorie und bezogen auf das Event oder den Wettkampfteil eingebunden waren – eben um die Konsistenz innerhalb des einen Baumes zu halten, andererseits aber auch gleichzeitig in der Personenkategorie überhaupt noch Bilder zu haben (dass Category:Martin Rulsch so leer wirkt, macht mich da bspw. auch nicht so glücklich – und ich suche mich da manchmal ziemlich mühselig ab). Doppelkategorisierungen innerhalb eines Kategoriensystems sind aber aus nachvollziehbaren Gründen umstritten, sodass ich hier leidenschaftslos bin.
- Ich hoffe am Ende noch, dass es wenigstens keinen Dissens darüber gibt, dass es sinnvoll ist, für Personen auch Kategorien ohne in X(2) oder at Y(3) geben sollte: also einfach eine Kategorie mit dem reinen Namen(1). Hier bei 2020 YOG kann es vielleicht sogar mal passiert sein, dass für manche bisher nur (3) angelegt wurde, weil das im System des Projektes die primär angesteuerte Kategorie beim Upload war; oder für manche bisher nur (1), weil dies ggf. sinnvoller war – das wird natürlich nachgearbeitet und es ist herzlich aufgerufen, dabei zu helfen.
- Was ist das Fazit aus all diesem? Hätten wir Tags, würde sich niemand darüber beklagen, dass das Bild der Person sowohl den Tag Jahr, als auch den Tag bei Event hätte. Beide Kategorisierungsmöglichkeiten gibt es. Für das hiesige Event wurde, aus den genannten Gründen (Konsistenz gegenüber Personen mit mehr eigenen Unterkategorien, einfacheres Ansteuern in Artikeln, Nachnutzbarkeit der Bilder dieses Events, Relevanz des Events usw.), zunächst diese Variante angegangen. Das möge uns doch bitte unbelassen sein, sinnvoll und konsistent angelegte Kategorien hier zu erstellen und zu füllen. Einer weitergehenden Strukturierung, sofern dies anzahl- und eventmäßig passend ist, steht natürlich nichts entgegen. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I had last year an accreditation for Bobsport European Cup in Altenberg. This year for Skeleton would be an absolute possibility. So, your argumentation did not work. Once more. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Es besteht meiner Meinung nach in zwei Punkten eine unterschiedliche Meinung, einmal natürlich im Thema „Konsistenz“ und einmal im Thema „Aufbau einer Personenkategorie“. So kommt man dann sicherlich zu den verschiedenen Meinungen. Während euer Fokus ja auf den YOG-Kategorien liegt, stehen bei mir die Personenkategorien im Vordergrund.
- Thema „Konsistenz“: Ihr seht die Konsistenz in Bezug auf den Kategoriebaum unter YOG 2020. Ich dagegen sehe die Konsistenz in Bezug auf den Kategoriebaum unter „Olympic sportspeople“. Wie ich bereits bei COM:AN/U beschrieben wird bis zu den Olympischen Winterspielen 2018 die Sportler in den Kategorie „<Bezeichnung der Spiele> sportspeople“ mit ihrer Hauptkategorie einsortiert wurden. Ja jetzt kann man natürlich sagen, dass es zu diesen Olympischen Spielen von den Sportlern keine Bilder gab und sie deswegen so einsortiert wurde. So könnte man es auch erklären. Aber ich sehe in dieser Art der „Einsortierung“ Vorteile gegenüber der von euch präferierten „Einsortierung“. Die Vorteile hatte ich ja auch bereits bei COM:AN/U erörtert, aber ich werde sie auch noch mal hier vortragen. Aus persönlichen Sicht geht es bei der Einsortierung in die Kategorie „2020 Winter Youth Olympics sportspeople“ und deren Unterkategorien nicht nur um den Sportlerin oder den Sportler bei diesen Spielen, sondern um die Sportlerin oder den Sportler allgemein. Deswegen sollte man die Hauptkategorie einsortieren und eben nicht die Kategorie „<Name> at 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“. Denn über die Hauptkategorie bekommt man die allgemeinen Informationen:
- Überblick über alle Kategorien und damit auch alle Bilder
- Kurzinformationen mittels der Infobox
- weiterführende Informationen über den Link zu Wikidata
- Überblick über die Wikis mit Artikeln zu dieser Person
- All diese Informationen hat man bei der Einordnung der Kategorie „<Name> at 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“ eben nicht. Deswegen sehe ich die bisherige Handhabung als besser an als die Handhabung, welche ihr durchsetzen wollt. Ich habe nie gesagt, dass es eine Erfindung von euch ist. Ich habe nur gesagt, dass ihr etwas anwendet, was bisher noch nicht so verwendet wurde. Das lässt sich ja nicht abstreiten. Weil du das so explizit in deinen Ausführungen erwähnst, will ich auf die folgende Aussage nochmal eingehen:
Da wäre es für mich tatsächlich sehr verwirrend, wenn in Category:Lugers at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics neben Peter Müller die Kategorie Hans Franz in 2017 oder Erika Musterfrau at the 2020 Youth Olympic Games stünde, statt konsistent at ….
— DerHexer
- Thema „Konsistenz“: Ihr seht die Konsistenz in Bezug auf den Kategoriebaum unter YOG 2020. Ich dagegen sehe die Konsistenz in Bezug auf den Kategoriebaum unter „Olympic sportspeople“. Wie ich bereits bei COM:AN/U beschrieben wird bis zu den Olympischen Winterspielen 2018 die Sportler in den Kategorie „<Bezeichnung der Spiele> sportspeople“ mit ihrer Hauptkategorie einsortiert wurden. Ja jetzt kann man natürlich sagen, dass es zu diesen Olympischen Spielen von den Sportlern keine Bilder gab und sie deswegen so einsortiert wurde. So könnte man es auch erklären. Aber ich sehe in dieser Art der „Einsortierung“ Vorteile gegenüber der von euch präferierten „Einsortierung“. Die Vorteile hatte ich ja auch bereits bei COM:AN/U erörtert, aber ich werde sie auch noch mal hier vortragen. Aus persönlichen Sicht geht es bei der Einsortierung in die Kategorie „2020 Winter Youth Olympics sportspeople“ und deren Unterkategorien nicht nur um den Sportlerin oder den Sportler bei diesen Spielen, sondern um die Sportlerin oder den Sportler allgemein. Deswegen sollte man die Hauptkategorie einsortieren und eben nicht die Kategorie „<Name> at 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“. Denn über die Hauptkategorie bekommt man die allgemeinen Informationen:
- Es besteht meiner Meinung nach in zwei Punkten eine unterschiedliche Meinung, einmal natürlich im Thema „Konsistenz“ und einmal im Thema „Aufbau einer Personenkategorie“. So kommt man dann sicherlich zu den verschiedenen Meinungen. Während euer Fokus ja auf den YOG-Kategorien liegt, stehen bei mir die Personenkategorien im Vordergrund.
- Ich weißt jetzt nicht wie du darauf kommst. Ich schätze mal, dass du dann die Kategorien der Sportlerin oder des Sportlers in die Kategorie „2020 Winter Youth Olympics sportspeople“ und deren Unterkategorien einsortieren willst, in welchen die Bilder befinden, welche von euch bei den Olympischen Jugend-Winterspielen 2020 aufgenommen wurden. Das habe ich aber nie so gesagt und das würde ich auch nie so machen wollen. Das will ich hier nochmal klarstellen. Was ich mir vorstelle ist, dass in die Kategorie „2020 Winter Youth Olympics sportspeople“ und deren Unterkategorien die Hauptkategorien der Sportlerinnen oder der Sportler einsortiert werden, so wie es bis zu den Olympischen Winterspielen 2018 gemacht wurde. Schlussendlich kann man es so ausdrücken: Wir haben einen Dissens in Bezug auf, was in Kategorie einsortiert wird. Aber wir haben keinen Dissens in Bezug auf, dass wir ein verwirrendes nebeneinander haben wollen.
- Thema „Aufbau einer Personenkategorie“: Die zweite Meinungsverschiedenheit liegt in diesem Thema. Du hast auch in deinen Ausführungen zwei Aussagen gebracht, auf welche ich nun gerne eingehen würde.
Wie geschrieben spricht unsererseits nichts gegen (1) Max Mustermann -> (2) Max Mustermann in 2020 -> (3) Max Mustermann at 2020 Winter Youth Olympics.
— DerHexer
- Dies kann verwendet, werden aber nur dann, wenn es wirklich notwendig ist. Das bedeutet, wenn sowohl die Hauptkategorie, also (1), und wenn die Jahreskategorie (2) überfüllt sind. Dies wäre es ja zum Beispiel Félix Dolci der Fall. Die Kategorie (3) musste bei ihm ja sogar in Unterkategorien aufgeteilt werden, weil es so viele Bilder sind. Meine Meinung hazu habe ich ja unmissverständlich in bei COM:AN/U dargestellt. Daran ändert sich auch durch deine beiden Links nichts. Anders sieht die Sache zum Beispiel bei Jill Gander und bei Nele Kaschinski aus, um weitere Beispiel zu nennen. Bei der Schweizer Skeletonpilotin Jill Gander benötigt man weder eine Jahreskategorie noch eine Wettbewerbskategorie. Die neun Bilder kann man auch einfach in der Hauptkategorie einsortieren und somit spart man prinzipiell zwei Kategorien. Bei der deutschen Skeletonpilotin Nele Kaschinski sieht die Lage ein wenig anders aus und bei ihrer Kategorie würde ich sagen, dass eine Jahreskategorie sinnmachen würde, weil es von ihr durch Stepro und Sandra Halank aus den Jahr 2018 insgesamt 51 Bilder gibt und aus den Jahr 2020 gibt es durch die Olympischen Jugendspiele 17 Bilder. Deswegen sehe ich sowohl die Kategorie „Nele Kaschinski in 2018“ als auch „Nele Kaschinski in 2020“ als gerechtfertigt an. Im Gegensatz dazu sehe ich eine Wettbewerbskategorie bei ihr nicht als nötig an. Jetzt könnte von euch wieder der Einwand kommen: „Die Wettbewerbskategorie wird doch aber benötigt.“ Damit hättet ihr recht, wenn ich so argumentieren würde, wie ihr. Aber so argumentierte ich ja nicht. Oben habe ich ja beim Thema „Konsistenz“ geschrieben, dass ich im Gegensatz zu euch die Hauptkategorie der Sportlerin oder des Sportlers in die Kategorie „2020 Winter Youth Olympics sportspeople“ und deren Unterkategorien einordnen würde. Somit verliert die Wettbewerbskategorie die von euch vorgebrachte Begründung und ist damit nicht mehr zwingend notwendig. Damit kann es eine solche Kategorie geben, wenn es notwendig ist wie bei Félix Dolci, aber es muss keine Kategorie geben, wenn sie keinen Mehrwert hat wie bei Jill Gander und Nele Kaschinski. Noch mal kurz möchte ich bei Jill Gander einharken, weil du eine interessante Aussage gebracht hast.
Ich habe letztlich auch schon Personen-Kategorien gesehen, wo Bilder gleichzeitig in der Überkategorie und bezogen auf das Event oder den Wettkampfteil eingebunden waren – eben um die Konsistenz innerhalb des einen Baumes zu halten, andererseits aber auch gleichzeitig in der Personenkategorie überhaupt noch Bilder zu haben […].
— DerHexer
- Eine solche Personenkategorie, wie du in dieser Aussage ansprichst, fällt mir gleich auf Anhieb ein. So ist es nämlich auch bei der Kategorie der deutschen Basketballerin Emily Enochs. In der Hauptkategorie sind 36 Bilder einsortiert, welche zudem auch in der Kategorie „Emily Enochs at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics“ enthalten sind. Das kann aber auch nicht Sinn der Sache sein, wenn man dann eine Doppelkategorisierung macht. Deswegen würde ich ja sowohl bei Emily Enochs als auch bei Jill Gander, wo die Kategorie noch leerer ist als bei Martin Rusch, die Bilder in die Hauptkategorie einzuordnen und die Wettbewerbskategorie zu löschen.
Für mich war (2) bisher nur dann ein Thema, wenn es zu viele Unterkategorien für die Person gab.
— DerHexer
- Zu dieser Aussage von dir möchte ich mich auch noch äußern. Für mich – persönlich – sind eher die Wettbewerbskategorien neu. Natürlich gibt es diese ab und zu. Aber sie sind nach meiner Erfahrung eher in der Minderheit. Manchmal tauchen sie natürlich auf, wie zum Beispiel bei den deutschen Straßen-Radmeisterschaften 2015 und 2017. Aber sonst sind sie mir noch nicht so oft untergekommen. Aus meiner Erfahrung heraus würde ich sagen, dass zuerst nach Jahr sortiert wird, wenn die Kategorie zu voll ist und nicht nach Wettbewerb. Nach Wettbewerb wird nur sortiert, wenn die Jahreskategorien zu voll sind. Aber das passiert meiner Erfahrung nach eher selten.
- Unsere verschiedene Meinungen basieren auf der unterschiedlichen Interpretation der Konsistenz und daraus entwickeln sich dann auch unterschiedliche Meinungen, wie eine Personenkategorie aufgebaut ist oder aufgebaut wird. So kann man – glaube ich – in kurzen Worten unseren Dissens beschreiben. MfG --Xxlfussel (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wir nähern uns in der Tat der Problem. Ich denke, ich habe jetzt verstanden, wieso wir uns bei manchen Dingen nicht verstehen. Zunächst einmal finde ich es gut, dass wir soweit sind, dass die Bezeichnung der Kategorie nicht falsch ist, sondern solche Bezeichnungen auf Commons vorhanden sind (im Sportbereich mglw. weniger, weil dort noch nicht so viele Fotos gemacht werden konnten; in der Tat leisten wir hier mit ein paar anderen Personen zusammen Pionierarbeit). Ich halte auch fest, dass wir ein gemeinsames Verständnis dafür haben, dass innerhalb einer Kategorie für Subkategorien ähnlicher Natur auch gleiche Bezeichnungen, soweit möglich, zu bevorzugen sind. Für mich war das Thema damit eigentlich schon erledigt, denn genau das haben wir gemacht (validen Kategoriennamen in einem konsistenten Subkategorienverhältnis vrwendet) und dies wurde durch ein Verschieben der Kategorie von „at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“ zu „in 2020“ ja aufgelöst.
- Gestern hat es dann bei mir Klick gemacht: Beide Seiten versuchen, einen Kategorienbaum zu bauen – nur haben wir dafür unterschiedliche Herangehensweisen. Wir verwenden ein induktives Verfahren, während du von einem deduktiven Ansatz her kommst. Um es etwas verständlicher zu machen: Wir gehen vom kleinsten Element aus und konstruieren darauf aufbauend die Überkategorien, während du von den Überkategorien kommst und dahingehend Unterkategorien entwirfst. Beide Ansätze sind vom philosophischen Standpunkt vollkommen valide, sollten aber letztlich auch zu denselben, deckungsgleichen Ergebnissen führen.
- Ich möchte gern erläutern, warum der induktive Ansatz der einfachere ist und wieso der deduktive Ansatz m. E. zu Fehler in der ontologischen Struktur geführt hat, so wie du sie hier beschrieben hast. Gehen wir von der Kategorie „Félix Dolci at 2018 Summer Youth Olympics“, diese ist konstruiert durch drei Elemente: Person, Jahr, Ereignis (type). Nehmen wir des Weiteren an, für jede Kategorie gäbe es genügend Bilder.
- Dann wäre im Strang Person folgende Ordnung zu erwarten: Félix Dolci -> Félix Dolci by year -> Félix Dolci in 2018 -> Félix Dolci at 2018 by type ->-> Félix Dolci at 2018 events ->-> Félix Dolci at 2018 Summer Youth Olympics sowie Félix Dolci -> Félix Dolci at type -> Félix Dolci at events -> Félix Dolci at sports events -> Félix Dolci at sports events by year ->-> Félix Dolci at 2018 Summer Youth Olympics. Über Félix Dolci at sports events wäre eine Kategorie People at sports events, über Félix Dolci in 2018 wäre eine Kategorie People in 2018 und über einer Kategorie Félix Dolci at 2018 Summer Youth Olympics wäre dementsprechend eine Kategorie Male artistic gymnasts at 2018 Summer Youth Olympics (darüber Athletes at ~ und darüber People at ~) usw. usf.
- Für den Strang Jahr wäre folgende Ordnung zu erwarten: 2018 -> 2018 by type -> 2018 by events -> 2018 by sports events ->-> 2018 Summer Youth Olympics.
- Für den Strang Ereignis wäre es dementsprechend: Type ->-> Sports event -> Olympics -> Youth Olympics -> Summer Youth Olympics -> 2018 Summer Youth Olympics.
- Für uns lautet der Schluss daher, People at 2018 Summer Youth Olympics ist 2018 Summer Youth Olympics unterzuordnen. Das System ist in sich konsistent, unter der Annahme, in jeder Kategorie gibt es Fotos.
- Nun gibt es aber ja hier das Bedauern darüber, dass es noch nicht allzu viele Fotos von manchen Personen gibt. Und daher ist es auch nachvollziehbar, über eine Streichung von Zwischenkategorien zu sprechen. In der Tat, wenn es für alle Sportlerinnen und Sportler in ihren Namenskategorien (hier: Félix Dolci) ausschließlich die Bilder von einem Event gäbe, dann könnte man statt Félix Dolci at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics auch unter People -> Athletes -> Male artistic gymnasts at 2018 Summer Youth Olympics ganz einfach Félix Dolci sortieren. Da wir alle hier ja aber der Meinung sind, dass die Bezeichnung gleich nebeneinander stehen sollte, würden andere Bilder in der Kategorie Félix Dolci, die nicht bei den 2018 Summer Youth Olympics geschossen wurden (und da gibt es welche), fälschlich diesem Strang Ereignis zugeordnet. Und genau dies gibt es schon, Beispiel für das 2020er Projekt: Glamorous gibt für den Kategorienbaum unter 2020 Winter Youth Olympics das Bild File:World Food Program 2.jpg an, eben weil nicht Paul Tergat at 2020 Winter Youth Olympics untergeordnet ist, sondern Paul Tergat selbst und damit offensichtlich auch Bilder, die im Kategorienbaum nicht an diese Stelle gehören. Ontologisch korrekt müssten die Bilder in Unterkategorien aufgetrennt werden und an die drei Ordnungsprinzipien angepasst werden. Genau dasselbe müsste passieren, wenn von der Person im selben Jahr noch ein Bild hochgeladen würde, um den Kategorienbaum sauber zu halten. Bei manchen Sportarten ist dies zu erwarten, bei manchen eher weniger. Daher gibt es auch manche Kategorien mit at 2020 Winter Youth Olympics und bei manchen (noch) nicht; sie sollte es dann, und dann auch sauber für alle anderen Personen dergleichen Sportartenüberkategorie, angelegt werden. Dass beim Gerätturnen, Rodeln usw. weitere Bilder aufgrund von unseren Aktivitäten zu erwarten sind, hat dazu geführt, dass mindestens diese schon einmal angelegt wurden. Und, dann bitte auch so konsistent bleiben.
- Der deduktive Ansatz führte hier zu Problemen, denn er ordnete den gesamten Strang Person einem einzelnen Event unter, obwohl dies (wie auch das Jahr) ontologisch nebeneinander getrennt betrachtet und dann zusammengeführt werden muss. Mit Male aristic gymnasts at 2018 Summer Youth Olympics -> Félix Dolci -> Félix Dolci at 2018 Summer Youth Olympics hätte es einen dringend zu vermeidenden Zirkelschluss gegeben.
- Und natürlich ist es bedauerlich, dass es mit ontologisch korrekten Subkategorien in übergeordneten Kategorien (und das können auch Kategorien wie Félix Dolci oder 2018 Summer Youth Olympics) nicht so einfach alle Bilder aller Unterkategorien angezeigt werden können. Aber das ist ja ein grundsätzliches Problem, das auf allen Ebenen des Kategorienbaumes zu finden ist, und definitiv einer technischen Lösung bedarf und nicht zu einem Grund werden sollte, wieso es nicht ontologisch korrekt bezeichnete Unterkategorien mit Bildern geben sollte.
- Ich hoffe, dies konnte ein wenig die Hintergründe aufklären und führt dazu, dass das System so bleiben kann, wie es ist: ontologisch korrekt und konsistent. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- @DerHexer: Ich wollte eigentlich lang und breit auf deinen Beitrag antworten. Aber ich glaube, dass hilft uns in der aktuellen Situation nicht wirklich weiter. Deswegen lasse ich das mal und setze auf das Sprichwort: „In der Kürze liegt die Würze“ Zu Beginn will ich sagen, dass ich froh bin, dass mit dir endlich jemand von der Gegenseite meinen Kritikpunkt verstanden hat. Das war bisher ja nicht der Fall. Nichtsdestotrotz sind die Fronten weiterhin verhärten. Ihr wollt weiterhin euren induktiven Weg fortführen und ich finde weiterhin den deduktiven Weg, welcher ja bisher genutzt wurde, viel besser als den induktiven Weg. Deswegen sollte man sich mal fragen, gibt es nicht eine Möglichkeit, dass beide Wege nebeneinander existieren können? --Xxlfussel (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wie geschrieben würden beide Ansätze zum exakt gleichen Ergebnis führen, wenn sie denn jeweils richtig durchgeführt würden. Da du bei deinem Vorschlag jedoch einen Zirkelschluss begehst, indem du die Personenhauptkategorie, die ja Subkategorien nach Event haben kann, direkt einem Event unterordnen möchtest, kann es schlicht nicht gutgehen. Die Subkategorie der Person bei Event muss sowohl direkt unter den Event-Kategoriestrang, als auch unter den Personen-Kategoriestrang (und unter den Jahres-Kategoriestrang). Solange dies der Fall in deinem Ansatz ist, gehen alle unsere beiderseitigen Bestrebungen, Konsistenzen zu erreichen, fehl. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ich sehe es nicht so, dass beide Arten von Kategorisierung zum gleichen Ergebnis führen. Wenn man die Hauptkategorie einsortiert dann ist der Sinn dahinter, dass es um die Sportlerin oder den Sportler im Allgemeinen geht. Im Gegensatz dazu geht es bei der Einsortierung der Sonderkategorie darum, dass man über den Sportler bei die Veranstaltung informiert, also Bilder von ihm bei der Veranstaltung zeigt. Das ist für mich schon ein Unterschied. --Xxlfussel (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nur dass es in einem Kategorienbaum nicht primär um Information geht, sondern um die korrekte Sortierung = Kategorisierung von Bildern. Welche Fehler bei deiner Vorgehensweise entstehen, ist dargestellt. Dass man von der Schnittmengenkategorie durch Aufrufen oder Abfragen von Überkategorien exakt dieselben Informationen erhält, wie sie von dir gewünscht sind, ist evident. Meines Erachtens ist die Diskussion damit zum Ende gelangt. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 07:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- @DerHexer: Es ist schade, dass du den Unterschied nicht erkennst, und es ist schade, dass du nun die Diskussion für beendet ansiehst. Ich sehe die Diskussion nämlich aktuell auf einen Weg zu einen Kompromiss und darum geht es doch, oder nicht? In einen Gemeinschaftsprojekt geht es darum, dass man bei Streitigkeiten Kompromisse findet, welche dem Projekt helfen. Ich hätte eine aktuell eine Idee für einen solchen Kompromiss. Aber wenn du die Diskussion für beendet erklärst, muss ich diese Idee ja nicht mehr äußern. --Paphia (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Welcher Unterschied? Es wurde klar mit Belegen aufgezeigt, dass der Vorschlag von xxlfussel einen (onto)logischen Fehler enthält, der im aktuellen Kategorienbaum von Commons zu einem Zirkelschluss und weitreichenden Konsequenzen in der Ordnung von Kategorien des Bereiches führt. Mit diesem logischen Fehler ist es unmöglich, einen Kompromiss zu schließen. Zunächst muss die Prämisse, das Ordnungssystem, korrekt sein, dann kann man innerhalb dieses System sicherlich über Gestaltungen sprechen. Oder ist das Thema, Personenüberkategorien unter Eventsubkategorien zu sortieren mittlerweile vom Tisch?
- Die auf Commons gängige Gestaltung ist, dass es Überkategorien gibt, in denen man übergreifende Informationen findet. Dass diese Informationen nicht auch noch in allen darunter geordneten Kategorien erneut angezeigt werden, ist eine technische Fragestellung, die grundsätzlich für alle Kategorien auf Commons geklärt werden müsste, sofern sie denn technisch auch sinnvoll umsetzbar wäre. In der Tat erachte ich die Diskussion über diesen Kategoriebaum für erledigt an: Der Name ist valid, das Ordnungssystem ist begründet und ontologisch sauber, die Bezeichnungen sind in sich konsistent. Darum ging es hier in der Diskussion.
- Man kann sicherlich an anderer Stelle generell über die Problematik von verlorengehenden Informationen in Unterkategorien sprechen (wieso man bei bspw. c:Category:Angela Merkel at the 2018 G-20 Buenos Aires summit nicht sofort weitere Informationen zu Angela Merkel sowie zum Event erhält), da schaue ich mir gern den Vorschlag zur generellen Verbesserung an. Niemand hindert dich oder andere Personen daran, die Kategoriebeschreibung von vorhandenen Kategorien zu bearbeiten und weitere Informationen zu ergänzen, sofern dies sinnvoll und passend wäre – bspw. zu den Statistiken oder Personenprofilen auf der offiziellen Webseite usw. usf., wie wir dies bspw. hier auch mal gemacht haben. Ob ich dann an einer generellen Diskussion viel mitdiskutieren würde, kann ich jedoch noch nicht absehen. Es gibt schon noch einige Bilder von diesem Event hier, die bearbeitet, hochgeladen, korrekt kategorisiert und verwendet werden wollen. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- @DerHexer: Wollen wir uns vielleicht nicht erstmal den Kompromissvorschlag anhören. Es ist ja ein wenig unsinnig ihn schon zu kritisieren, wenn er noch gar nicht ausführlich dargestellt wurde, oder siehst du das anders? Deswegen würde ich mich freuen, wenn Paphia ihren Kompromissvorschlag hier darstellen würde. --Xxlfussel (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, ein anderes Konto. Sprache, Duktus und Kenntnis der bilateralen Verständigung waren so identisch, dass ich gar nicht nach der Signatur geschaut hatte, als ich antwortete. Das erklärt andererseits sicherlich auch, wieso ich so direkt geantwortet habe. Kann ja auch gut sein, dass dies ein Zweitkonto von dir ist, ich kenne weder das eine noch das andere außerhalb dieser Diskussion bisher – es ist also kein Zweitkonto von dir? Zum Inhaltlichen: Wie geschrieben ist ein ein Kompromissvorschlag im Rahmen des fehlerhaften Ansatzes nicht möglich, für Hinweise in einem ontologisch stabiles System habe ich selbstverständlich nichts. Ein paar selbst habe ich ja genannt, eingehend auf deine Wünsche nach mehr Informationen in den Kategorien. Wie hältst du es denn mit diesen meinen Kompromissvorschlägen? Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- @DerHexer: Zuerst wirfst du mir vor ein Verschwörungstheoretiker zu sein und nun wirst du mir vor einen Zweitaccount zu haben. Oder wirfst du mir das gar nicht vor? Das kann ich nicht wirklich aus deinen Kommentar entnehmen – Aber nun zum eigentlichen Thema: Ich habe bisher noch keinen Kompromissvorschlag von dir gehört. Vielleicht habe ich ihn auch aus Versehen überlesen, das kann ja passieren. Du kannst ihn ja im unteren Abschnitt noch mal genauer erklären. --Xxlfussel (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, ein anderes Konto. Sprache, Duktus und Kenntnis der bilateralen Verständigung waren so identisch, dass ich gar nicht nach der Signatur geschaut hatte, als ich antwortete. Das erklärt andererseits sicherlich auch, wieso ich so direkt geantwortet habe. Kann ja auch gut sein, dass dies ein Zweitkonto von dir ist, ich kenne weder das eine noch das andere außerhalb dieser Diskussion bisher – es ist also kein Zweitkonto von dir? Zum Inhaltlichen: Wie geschrieben ist ein ein Kompromissvorschlag im Rahmen des fehlerhaften Ansatzes nicht möglich, für Hinweise in einem ontologisch stabiles System habe ich selbstverständlich nichts. Ein paar selbst habe ich ja genannt, eingehend auf deine Wünsche nach mehr Informationen in den Kategorien. Wie hältst du es denn mit diesen meinen Kompromissvorschlägen? Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- @DerHexer: Wollen wir uns vielleicht nicht erstmal den Kompromissvorschlag anhören. Es ist ja ein wenig unsinnig ihn schon zu kritisieren, wenn er noch gar nicht ausführlich dargestellt wurde, oder siehst du das anders? Deswegen würde ich mich freuen, wenn Paphia ihren Kompromissvorschlag hier darstellen würde. --Xxlfussel (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- @DerHexer: Es ist schade, dass du den Unterschied nicht erkennst, und es ist schade, dass du nun die Diskussion für beendet ansiehst. Ich sehe die Diskussion nämlich aktuell auf einen Weg zu einen Kompromiss und darum geht es doch, oder nicht? In einen Gemeinschaftsprojekt geht es darum, dass man bei Streitigkeiten Kompromisse findet, welche dem Projekt helfen. Ich hätte eine aktuell eine Idee für einen solchen Kompromiss. Aber wenn du die Diskussion für beendet erklärst, muss ich diese Idee ja nicht mehr äußern. --Paphia (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nur dass es in einem Kategorienbaum nicht primär um Information geht, sondern um die korrekte Sortierung = Kategorisierung von Bildern. Welche Fehler bei deiner Vorgehensweise entstehen, ist dargestellt. Dass man von der Schnittmengenkategorie durch Aufrufen oder Abfragen von Überkategorien exakt dieselben Informationen erhält, wie sie von dir gewünscht sind, ist evident. Meines Erachtens ist die Diskussion damit zum Ende gelangt. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 07:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ich sehe es nicht so, dass beide Arten von Kategorisierung zum gleichen Ergebnis führen. Wenn man die Hauptkategorie einsortiert dann ist der Sinn dahinter, dass es um die Sportlerin oder den Sportler im Allgemeinen geht. Im Gegensatz dazu geht es bei der Einsortierung der Sonderkategorie darum, dass man über den Sportler bei die Veranstaltung informiert, also Bilder von ihm bei der Veranstaltung zeigt. Das ist für mich schon ein Unterschied. --Xxlfussel (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wie geschrieben würden beide Ansätze zum exakt gleichen Ergebnis führen, wenn sie denn jeweils richtig durchgeführt würden. Da du bei deinem Vorschlag jedoch einen Zirkelschluss begehst, indem du die Personenhauptkategorie, die ja Subkategorien nach Event haben kann, direkt einem Event unterordnen möchtest, kann es schlicht nicht gutgehen. Die Subkategorie der Person bei Event muss sowohl direkt unter den Event-Kategoriestrang, als auch unter den Personen-Kategoriestrang (und unter den Jahres-Kategoriestrang). Solange dies der Fall in deinem Ansatz ist, gehen alle unsere beiderseitigen Bestrebungen, Konsistenzen zu erreichen, fehl. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- @DerHexer: Ich wollte eigentlich lang und breit auf deinen Beitrag antworten. Aber ich glaube, dass hilft uns in der aktuellen Situation nicht wirklich weiter. Deswegen lasse ich das mal und setze auf das Sprichwort: „In der Kürze liegt die Würze“ Zu Beginn will ich sagen, dass ich froh bin, dass mit dir endlich jemand von der Gegenseite meinen Kritikpunkt verstanden hat. Das war bisher ja nicht der Fall. Nichtsdestotrotz sind die Fronten weiterhin verhärten. Ihr wollt weiterhin euren induktiven Weg fortführen und ich finde weiterhin den deduktiven Weg, welcher ja bisher genutzt wurde, viel besser als den induktiven Weg. Deswegen sollte man sich mal fragen, gibt es nicht eine Möglichkeit, dass beide Wege nebeneinander existieren können? --Xxlfussel (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Xxlfussel: ich habe mich jetzt ca. 30 min durch diese und die vorhergegangen Diskussionen gewühlt, aber ich verstehe leider nicht, was aus Deiner Sicht gegen die, von den Fotografen vorgeschlagene, Kategorienstruktur spricht. Könntest du das nochmal kurz als Leserservice zusammenfassen und bestenfalls dazu schreiben, welche Struktur Du bevorzugst. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mir geht's genauso. Viel Lärm um was eigentlich? Für mich wird nur deutlich, daß es höchste Zeit für die Abschaffung von Kategorien und Dateinamen ist. --Ralf Roletschek 05:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- @MB-one: Ich versuche es mal so vernünftig wie möglich zu formulieren. Wenn du dir die Diskussion eine halbe Stunde lang durchgelesen hast und mir nun die Frage „Welche Struktur favorisierst du?“ stellst, dann frage ich mich: Hast du dir nur die Kommentare von den Fotographen durchgelesen und meine nicht? In meinen Beitrag vom 13. Mai 2020 steht im Abschnitt zum Thema „Konsistenz“ ganz genau, welche Struktur ich bevorzuge. Dort steht zudem auch, warum – in meinen Augen – diese Struktur besser geeignet ist. Ich verstehe ehrlich gesagt nicht, wie man das überlesen kann. In meinen bisherigen Beitragen habe ich mich auch mehrfach dazu geäußert, warum ich die aktuelle Vorgehensweise nicht gut finde. Wenn man bisher meine Kritikpunkte nicht gesehen hat, dann wird man sie auch weiterhin nicht sehen. Deswegen erspare ich mir die Mühe und führe sie nicht erneut auf. --Xxlfussel (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ich habe offenbar alles richtig gemacht, als ich bei der Olympiade in Innsbruck alles gemäß Empfehlung in eine Kat. abgeladen habe. Ich verstehe nicht, warum den Fotografen immer wieder ins Handwerk gepfuscht wird. --Ralf Roletschek 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- @MB-one: Ich versuche es mal so vernünftig wie möglich zu formulieren. Wenn du dir die Diskussion eine halbe Stunde lang durchgelesen hast und mir nun die Frage „Welche Struktur favorisierst du?“ stellst, dann frage ich mich: Hast du dir nur die Kommentare von den Fotographen durchgelesen und meine nicht? In meinen Beitrag vom 13. Mai 2020 steht im Abschnitt zum Thema „Konsistenz“ ganz genau, welche Struktur ich bevorzuge. Dort steht zudem auch, warum – in meinen Augen – diese Struktur besser geeignet ist. Ich verstehe ehrlich gesagt nicht, wie man das überlesen kann. In meinen bisherigen Beitragen habe ich mich auch mehrfach dazu geäußert, warum ich die aktuelle Vorgehensweise nicht gut finde. Wenn man bisher meine Kritikpunkte nicht gesehen hat, dann wird man sie auch weiterhin nicht sehen. Deswegen erspare ich mir die Mühe und führe sie nicht erneut auf. --Xxlfussel (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Kompromisvorschlag
[edit]„Du kannst es gern anmerken, wenn du etwas anders sinnvoller findest, wir können uns darüber austauschen und wir finden dann hoffentlich einen gemeinsamen Weg.“ – Diesen Satz von Sandro Halank nehme ich jetzt einfach mal zum Anlass und trage meinen Kompromissvorschlag vor. Ob ihr euch dann zu ihm äußert oder nicht, ist euch überlassen. Mein Kompromissvorschlag nutzt sowohl den induktiven als auch den deduktiven Ansatz, nur in zwei verschiedenen Kategoriebäumen. Bei meiner Idee haben wir einmal die Überkategorie People at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics, also ähnlich wie bei den Olympischen Jugend-Sommerspielen 2018 (People at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics). In dieser Kategorie wird der induktive Ansatz genutzt. Dies lässt ja auch der Name der Kategorie bereits vermuten. Die Kategorie wird zudem eine Unterkategorie von der Kategorie 2020 Winter Youth Olympics. Sie ist aber keine Unterkategorie von Winter Youth Olympics sportspeople, denn Unterkategorie von dieser Kategorie ist die zweite Überkategorie 2020 Winter Youth Olympics sportspeople, welche ja bereits existiert. Und in dieser Überkategorie verwenden wir den deduktiven Ansatz, damit wir die Konsistenz in der Kategorie Olympic sportspeople erhalten. Für Fragen zu meinen Kompromissvorschlag stehe ich gerne zur Verfügung. --Paphia (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Paphia: Das gute an den Vorschlag ist natürlich, dass beide Ansätze angewendet werden und das zudem die beiden Kategorien „Olympic sportspeople“ und „2020 Winter Youth Olympics“ konsistent gehalten werden. Aber auf der anderen Seite stellt sich für mich die Frage: Ist das nicht ein wenig doppelt gemoppelt? --Xxlfussel (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- (eingequetscht) Auf diese Frage habe ich schon gewartet. Im Bezug auf die Olympischen Jugend-Winterspiele 2020 könnte es so sein, wenn wirklich alle Teilnehmer fotografiert wurden. Ob das der Fall ist, kann uns wohl eher jemand von den Projekt-Beteiligten mitteilen. Ein wenig anderes gestaltet sich die Sache bei den Olympischen Jugend-Sommerspielen 2018. Dort kommt es nicht zu einer Dopplung, weil dort nicht alle Sportler fotografiert wurden, jedenfalls wenn man annimmt, dass bereits alle Bilder hochgeladen wurden. Als Beispiel sei María Vicente genannt. Sie nahm an den Olympischen Jugend-Sommerspielen 2018 teil und gewann dort sogar eine Medaille. Aber von ihr wurden (noch) keine Bilder hochgeladen, welche bei den Olympischen Jugend-Sommerspielen 2018 entstanden sind. Sie hat aber trotzdem eine Galerie, da es von ihr Bilder bei zwei anderen Veranstaltungen gibt. --Paphia (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Genau dies ist die aktuelle Abbildung der Kategorien, wie sie auf Commons üblich ist und wie sie von uns auch genutzt wird: Denn unter Winter Youth Olympics gibt es schon lang zwei Stränge: nach Person (Winter Youth Olympics sportspeople) und nach Event (Winter Youth Olympics events [fehlt noch] -> 2020 Winter Youth Olympics). Die Kategorie Selina Egle at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics ist der größte gemeinsame Teiler dieser beiden Stränge. Im Personenstrang ist er Selina Egle untergeordnet (und ontologisch nur notwendig, wenn es auch noch andere Bilder von Selina Egle – oder aus Konsistenzgründen bei Parallelkategorien – gibt), im Eventstrang den Personen bei der Jugendolympiade, ggf. nach Ländern usw. Es entspricht daher vollumfänglich unserer Darstellung und für unsere Seite natürlich ein sinnvoller Kompromiss (bzw. Alternativdarstellung). Wie geschrieben, werden diese beiden Kategorien benötigt (sofern beide nötig), es sind aber noch nicht alle angelegt. Die Gründe sind dargelegt, die Bitte zum Mitmachen ausgesprochen. Xxlfussel ging es aber darum, die Eventkategorie durch eine Jahreskategorie zu ersetzen. Und das Ersetzen ist das Problem: denn eine Person-im-Jahr-Kategorie passt nicht unter den Eventstrang (sondern nur unter den Personenstrang). Sie ist daher eine mögliche zusätzliche Kategorie dazwischen (sofern es mehrere Person-je-Eventsbilder in einem Jahr gibt), aber kein Ersatz.
- Die Sorgen von Xxlfussel sind durch dieser unser beider System aber noch nicht abgedeckt, denn, soweit ich das verstanden habe, vermisst Xxlfussel in der Person-bei-Event-Kategorie Informationen zur Person (und ich bspw. auch noch zum Event). Das ist für mich nur bedingt nachvollziehbar, denn in bspw. October 12, 2007 Lech Kaczyński and Angela Merkel geht es weder um Angela Merkel, noch um das Thema politischer Treffen, sondern um ein konkretes Ereignis, das der größte gemeinsame Teiler davon ist. In einem korrekten Kategorienbaum geht man in die Überkategorien Angela Merkel sowie Deutsch-Polnische Beziehungen (usw. usf.) und bekommt dort diese Informationen. Bei diesen unseren Kategorien bei der 2020er Jugendolympiade gibt es aber sogar weitere Informationen zur Person beim Event. Wie von mir oben als Kompromiss vorgeschlagen könnte man in die Kategorie Selina Egle at 2020 Winter Youth Olympic Games entweder in den Quelltext oder in die Wikidatabox den weiterführenden Link von der offiziellen Webseite (hier) hinzufügen. Wie bspw. auch Presseberichterstattung, sofern es welche gibt, oder irgendwelche anderen Informationen, die eine hunderprozentige Schnittmenge der beiden Stränge darstellt. Dies bedeutet aber keine Veränderung am Kategorienbaum, worum es in dieser Diskussion hier ja ursprünglich gehen sollte. Ich bleibe dabei: Das Thema ist geklärt. Danke, Paphia, dass du in anderen Worten noch einmal unserer System erklärt und bestätigt hast. Die Category:People at 2020 Winter Youth Olympics kann gern angelegt und alle Personenkategorien, die ausschließlich Bilder von der 2020 Winter Youth Olympics enthalten (egal, ob sie nun Selina Egle at 2020 Winter Youth Olympics oder bspw. Category:Chiara Pogneaux heißen, weil es für Chiara Pogneaux noch nicht notwendig war, eine Chiara Pogneaux at 2020 Winter Youth Olympics anzulegen). Dies ist, augenscheinlich, halt noch nicht analog zu 2020 gemacht worden.
- Ich würde daher als nächstes (vllt. so in ca. drei Tagen) ein paar deutschsprachige Commons-Admins anpingen und um Abschluss dieser Diskussion hier bitten. Kann aber gern auch jemand anderes in der Diskussion machen. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- @DerHexer: Ich habe mir mehrmals deinen Beitrag durchgelesen und kann gewisse Punkte immer noch nicht nachvollziehen. Aber es sieht so aus, als hättest du meinen Kompromissvorschlag nicht verstanden. Mein Kompromissvorschlag sieht zwei voneinander getrennte Kategoriebäume für die Teilnehmer der Olympischen Jugend-Winterspiele 2020 vor. Eine Beschreibung ist vermutlich ein wenig schwierig und deswegen mache ich es lieber an einen beispielhaften Kategoriebäumen fest.
Kategoriebaum 1: People at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics Kategoriebaum 2: 2020 Winter Youth Olympics sportspeople
- So stelle ich mir das vor. Wie ich bereits in meinen ersten Beitrag geschrieben habe. Erhält man mit dieser Variante sowohl die Konsistenz in der Kategorie 2020 Winter Youth Olympics als auch in der Kategorie Olympic sportspeople. --Paphia (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Und unter Jessica Degenhardt ist natürlich die Kategorie Jessica Degenhardt at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics sortiert, sodass es natürlich eine Überschneidung der beiden Bäume an dieser Stelle gibt, die korrekte Darstellung deines Vorschlages wäre daher:
- So stelle ich mir das vor. Wie ich bereits in meinen ersten Beitrag geschrieben habe. Erhält man mit dieser Variante sowohl die Konsistenz in der Kategorie 2020 Winter Youth Olympics als auch in der Kategorie Olympic sportspeople. --Paphia (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Kategoriebaum 1: People at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics - People at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics
- Athletes at 2020 Summer Youth Olympics
- Lugers at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics
- Jessica Degenhardt at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics (hängt natürlich an anderer Stelle zwangsweise auch unter Jessica Degenhardt)
- Skeleton racers at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics
- Elisabeth Schrödl at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics (hängt natürlich an anderer Stelle zwangsweise auch unter Elisabeth Schrödl)
- Lugers at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics
- Athletes at 2020 Summer Youth Olympics
Kategoriebaum 2: 2020 Winter Youth Olympics sportspeople - People at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics
- Ich habe nun versucht zu verstehen, was der Sinn hinter der Kategorie 2020 Winter Youth Olympics sportspeople ist, da es ja anscheinend schon lange nicht mehr um X at 2020 Winter Youth Olympics (was durch in 2020 ersetzt werden sollte) geht, wofür wir hier eigentlich mal zusammengekommen waren. So wie sie sich mir aktuell darstellt, haben wir hier halt das Problem, dass sich ein Strang, der Bilder in Kategorien zuordnet, mit einem Strang, der Personen in tag-artige Kategorien einsortiert, kreuzt. Beides ist über Commons:Categories und Commons:Category scheme People gestattet, und führt damit zwangsläufig auch zu Zirkelschlüssen im Kategorienbaum. Für Tags von Personen haben wir mittlerweile Wikidata und benötigen dafür nicht das Wikimedia-Commons-System, das primär auf Bildeinordnungen („The category structure is the primary way to organize and find files on the Commons.“) und nicht das Verschlagworten von Kategorien ausgerichtet ist. Das führt zu aktuell so merkwürdigen Konstruktionen wie in Category:Katharina Althaus, die in Category:2012 Winter Youth Olympics sportspeople einkategorisiert ist, aber überhaupt kein Bild von ihr von dem Event 2012 in der Kategorie zu finden ist (aus 2012 nur dieses von vor und dieses Bild von nach den YOG). Von dieser Art gibt es einige weitere Personenkategorien (Category:Elena Stern [nur ein Bild, 2015, und nicht 2012er YOG], Category:Ulla Zirne [erstes Bild aus 2015, ebenso bei YOG 2012 einsortiert], Category:Jacqueline Lölling [erstes Bild aus 2017, ebenso bei YOG 2012 einsortiert] usw.). Und bei unseren Bildern halt dazu, dass diese korrekt als Bild einer Person bei einem Event, aber auch (nach aktuellem Konsens) die Personenkategorie als Teilnehmerin eines Events einkategorisiert wird.
- Alle derartigen Tag-Kategorien zu löschen, müsste größer diskutiert werden. Mein alternativer Gedanke, diese Kategorien als Hiddencategories zu gestalten, würde ebenfalls massive Arbeiten auf Commons nach sich ziehen, würde die Zirkelschlüsse reduzieren. Dann müssten aber noch diverse weitere Personen, die Kategorien auf Commons haben und ebenfalls an YOGs teilgenommen haben, ebenfalls in diese Hiddencategories hinzugefügt werden. Und konsequenterweise könnte man für alle möglichen Wettkämpfe oder Ereignisse unzählige weitere derartige Tags erstellen.
- Der Kompromissvorschlag ist für mich daher akzeptabel, weil er unsere Sortierung genau abdeckt. Die Bilder sind dabei nur einmal zur Person zu kategorisieren, nämlich in der spezifischeren X at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics (sofern diese Kategorie denn nötig wird, weil es mehr Bilder der Person gibt oder die Konsistenz es verlangt und nicht eh nur die Personenhauptkategorie existiert). Dieses ist der größte gemeinsame Teiler, von dem ich sprach.
- Die Probleme beim doppelten Strukurierungsansatz von Commons und den zwangsläufigen Zirkelschlüssen sind erst einmal nicht lösbar, von mir aus könnte man es für die YOG mit den Hiddencategories so machen, wenn das irgendwie hilft, hier weiterzukommen. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ich muss die aktuelle Diskussionsstrang mal kurz durchqueren, weil mir eine Aussage von DerHexer in seinen Beitrag vom 7. Juni sehr sauer aufstößt. Hierbei handelt es sich um den folgenden Beitrag:
Xxlfussel ging es aber darum, die Eventkategorie durch eine Jahreskategorie zu ersetzen.
— DerHexer
- @DerHexer: Anhand dieser Aussage frage ich mich, ob du dir meine Beiträge überhaupt durchgelesen hast oder sie einfach nur überflogen hast. Ich denke eher zweiteres. Ansonsten würdest du nicht eine vollkommen unzutreffende Äußerung tätigen. Mir ging es nie darum die Eventkategorie durch eine Jahreskategorie zu ersetzen. Ich finde es traurig, dass ich das noch mal klarstellen muss. Aber die Aussage muss ja korrigiert werden. Und nun werde ich noch mal extra für dich erläutern, um was es mir geht bzw. ging: Zu Beginn ging es mir darum die Kategorie „Selina Egle at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“ löschen zu lassen. Für zwei Bilder benötigt man – meiner Meinung nach – keine Extra-Kategorie. Sie können auch einfach in die Hauptkategorie einsortiert werden. Im Nachhinein muss ich auch sagen, dass die Erstellung der Kategorie „Seline Egle in 2020“ auch ein Fehler war, weil diese Kategorie auch nicht benötigt wird. Die Diskussion weitete sich dann von der Selina-Egle-Event-Kategorie auf das Kategoriesystem aus. Dabei habe ich die Meinung vertreten, dass in die Kategorie „2020 Winter Youth Olympics sportspeople“ die Hauptkategorien der Sportler gehören und nicht die Event-Kategorien. Durch den Kompromissvorschlag wurde – aus meiner Sicht – die Kategoriesystem-Diskussion beendet. Dadurch kehre ich wieder zu meiner ersten Meinung zurück, dass man die Event-Kategorien nur in Notfällen benötigt. Deswegen kann man – aus meiner Sicht – zum Beispiel die Kategorien „Selina Egle at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“ löschen wie auch die Kategorie „Lansiia Dmytriieva at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“. Nach deinen Beitrag zu urteilen, siehst du das anders und deswegen ist ein Abschluss zum aktuellen Zeitpunkt noch nicht möglich. --Xxlfussel (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Entschuldige bitte, dass ich nicht den ersten Lapsus, die Eventkategorie sofort löschen zu lassen, auch noch mal als äußerst destruktives Verhalten aufgeführt habe, – da wurde ja hinreichend interventiert, sondern nur das Ersetzen der Eventkategorie durch die Jahreskategorie genannt habe. Es bleibt festzuhalten:
- Der Kategorienname ist valid. Dies wurde von allen Beteiligten hier festgehalten, auch von dir: „Für mich – persönlich – sind eher die Wettbewerbskategorien neu. Natürlich gibt es diese ab und zu.“ Die Personen, die die Inhalte hier erstellen und kategorisieren, haben ein schlüssiges System vorgestellt, das sowohl Kategorien des Typs X, als auch des Typs X at event umfasst und in den vorhandenen Kategorienbaum passt. X at event ist dabei X unterzuordnen, wie das mit den Angela-Merkel-Beispielen genannt wurde und Doppelkategorisierungen zu vermeiden (hier ebenfalls im Zitat: Das kann aber auch nicht Sinn der Sache sein, wenn man dann eine Doppelkategorisierung macht.). Der Primat einer Jahreskategorie gegenüber einer Eventkategorie wurde widerlegt (Beispiel war Category:Wikimedia Deutschland und Category:Martin Rulsch).
- Es herrscht Einigkeit darüber, dass Kategorien gleichen Typs X at event konsistent nebeneinander stehen sollen. Dein Wortlaut: Aber wir haben keinen Dissens in Bezug auf, dass wir ein verwirrendes nebeneinander haben wollen.. Danach hast du verschiedene Vorschläge gemacht, die dieses System kaputtmachen würden: „Deswegen würde ich ja sowohl bei Emily Enochs als auch bei Jill Gander, wo die Kategorie noch leerer ist als bei Martin Rusch, die Bilder in die Hauptkategorie einzuordnen und die Wettbewerbskategorie zu löschen.“. Leere Kategorien sind, wenn es Unterkategorien gibt, kein Löschgrund. Und die Existenz und Konsistenz wurden ja bejaht.
- Fazit: Unter all diesen Zugeständnissen ist das Thema, dass es Selina Egle at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympic Games nicht geben kann, sondern die Bilder nur unter Selina Egle zu kategorisieren sind, vom Tisch. Denn es gibt parallele Kategorien unter Category:Lugers at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics, in denen X at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympic Games notwendig ist, bspw. Category:Vanessa Schneider at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics mit Category:Vanessa Schneider. Es wurde dabei nun mehrfach erklärt, dass Kategorien keine Galerien sind und Informationen auch auf Wikidata oder auf Überkategorien gefunden werden können. Es wurden unsererseits daher Vorschläge gemacht, wie dennoch von dir gewünschte Inhalte in dem allseitig zugestimmten System nicht verloren gehen. Es wurde sogar ein Vorschlag gemacht, wie mit dem Dilemma der Zirkelschlüsse, die aus der (meines Erachtens systemiologisch falschen und mittlerweile auch nicht mehr nötigen) Tag-Kategorie sportspeople, die Kategorien kategorisiert, neben der Kategorie 2020 Winter Youth Olympics, die Bilder kategorisiert, umgegangen werden kann. Das hat, wie mehrfach gesagt, aber nichts mehr mit dem funktionierenden Kategorienbaum zu tun. Wie angekündigt pinge ich hiermit nun ein paar deutschsprachige Admins an, um dieses Thema abzuschließen: @AFBorchert, Didym, Hedwig in Washington, JuTa, Krd, Leyo, MB-one, Neozoon, Raymond, Reinhard Kraasch, Steinsplitter, and Túrelio: .
- Und nein, du kannst nicht alle liebelang mal deine Meinung hier in der Diskussion ändern oder einfach illegal Zweitkonten zum Diskutieren nutzen, um hier ein anderes Gewicht in der Diskussion darzustellen. Dazu fällt mir sonst nichts weiter ein, ich bin enttäuscht und verärgert und nicht bereit, mich weitere Wochen mit diesem Thema zu beschäftigen. Genannte Änderungsvorschläge können umgesetzt werden. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Da ich angepingt wurde: Ich werde diese Diskussion nicht abschließen. Ich habe (wie zu Beginn dargestellt) damals diesen Fall abgeschlossen und diese Diskussion hier eröffnet. Bezüglich dieser Diskussion bin ich wie oben angekündigt neutral und werde sie daher auch nicht abschließen. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Entschuldige bitte, dass ich nicht den ersten Lapsus, die Eventkategorie sofort löschen zu lassen, auch noch mal als äußerst destruktives Verhalten aufgeführt habe, – da wurde ja hinreichend interventiert, sondern nur das Ersetzen der Eventkategorie durch die Jahreskategorie genannt habe. Es bleibt festzuhalten:
- @DerHexer: Anhand dieser Aussage frage ich mich, ob du dir meine Beiträge überhaupt durchgelesen hast oder sie einfach nur überflogen hast. Ich denke eher zweiteres. Ansonsten würdest du nicht eine vollkommen unzutreffende Äußerung tätigen. Mir ging es nie darum die Eventkategorie durch eine Jahreskategorie zu ersetzen. Ich finde es traurig, dass ich das noch mal klarstellen muss. Aber die Aussage muss ja korrigiert werden. Und nun werde ich noch mal extra für dich erläutern, um was es mir geht bzw. ging: Zu Beginn ging es mir darum die Kategorie „Selina Egle at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“ löschen zu lassen. Für zwei Bilder benötigt man – meiner Meinung nach – keine Extra-Kategorie. Sie können auch einfach in die Hauptkategorie einsortiert werden. Im Nachhinein muss ich auch sagen, dass die Erstellung der Kategorie „Seline Egle in 2020“ auch ein Fehler war, weil diese Kategorie auch nicht benötigt wird. Die Diskussion weitete sich dann von der Selina-Egle-Event-Kategorie auf das Kategoriesystem aus. Dabei habe ich die Meinung vertreten, dass in die Kategorie „2020 Winter Youth Olympics sportspeople“ die Hauptkategorien der Sportler gehören und nicht die Event-Kategorien. Durch den Kompromissvorschlag wurde – aus meiner Sicht – die Kategoriesystem-Diskussion beendet. Dadurch kehre ich wieder zu meiner ersten Meinung zurück, dass man die Event-Kategorien nur in Notfällen benötigt. Deswegen kann man – aus meiner Sicht – zum Beispiel die Kategorien „Selina Egle at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“ löschen wie auch die Kategorie „Lansiia Dmytriieva at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics“. Nach deinen Beitrag zu urteilen, siehst du das anders und deswegen ist ein Abschluss zum aktuellen Zeitpunkt noch nicht möglich. --Xxlfussel (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Diese Diskussion kann hier gerne abgeschlossen werden. Ich sehe nach wie vor keinen Grund hier irgendwas an der, von den Fotografen eingerichteten, Kategorienstruktur zu verändern. --MB-one (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Vom Vorschlag zum Kompromiss
[edit]Es ist schön zu sehen, dass die Diskussion trotz meiner einmonatigen Zwangspause noch nicht abgeschlossen ist. Die Kritiker kaltzustellen und dann seine Meinung durchzudrängen, funktioniert doch wohl nicht immer, wie auf COM:AN/U. Das kann man auch als Sieg für die Seite von Paphia und mir werten und euer als „schlüssiges“ Kategoriesystem scheint doch nicht so super zu sein.
Entschuldige bitte, dass ich nicht den ersten Lapsus, die Eventkategorie sofort löschen zu lassen, auch noch mal als äußerst destruktives Verhalten aufgeführt habe, – da wurde ja hinreichend interventiert [sic!], sondern nur das Ersetzen der Eventkategorie durch die Jahreskategorie genannt habe.“
— DerHexer
Wenn du, DerHexer, mich so nett um Entschuldigung bittest, dann kann ich natürlich nur deine Entschuldigung annehmen. Zudem ist es ja auch immer großartig, wenn man in der Entschuldigung genau denselben Unsinn liest, welchen man ja erst klar widerlegt hat. Deswegen sage ich jetzt nochmal hier und jetzt: Ich habe die Eventkategorie durch die Jahreskategorie ersetzt und hatte es auch nie vor. In diesen Punkt muss ich genauso penetrant bleiben, wie du bei den Aussage „Kategorien sind keine Galerien“. So oft wie du und die anderen Mitstreiter das schon erwähnt haben, habe nun auch ich den Unterschied begriffen. Ich hoffe, dass du jetzt auch begreifst, dass es mir um etwas ganz anderes gegangen war.
Im Gegensatz dazu hast du, DerHexer, wohl den Begriff „Zugeständnissen“ nicht ganz verstanden. Ich habe bisher von dir noch kein einziges Zugeständnis gehört, naja besser gelesen. Aber vielleicht habe ich sie auch nur überlesen, das kann ja mal passieren. Bisher hat nur die Seite von Paphia und mir Zugeständnisse gemacht, wie ja im Kompromissvorschlag zu lesen ist. Aber wie gesagt, es ist nur ein Vorschlag und noch lange kein Kompromiss. Wir sind euch entgegengekommen, jetzt ist es an euch uns entgegenzukommen.
Durch die „Kaltstellung“ konnte ich mich leider noch nicht zum vorletzten Kommentar von DerHexer äußern, das möchte ich hiermit aber machen. Du sprichst in dem Beitrag „versteckte Kategorien“ an. Aber die haben doch hiermit nichts zu tun und werden soweit ich es weiß, auch nicht hier angewendet und das sollte auch so bleiben. In deinen Beitrag bekomme ich sehr schnell den Eindruck, dass du noch nicht ganz verstanden hast, was man von welcher Kategorie erwartet. Darauf kann man ja mal ein wenig genauer eingehen.
Nehmen wir zuerst die Kategorie 2020 Winter Youth Olympics sportspeople. Was erwartet man dort zu finden? Aus meiner Sicht erwartet man dort die Hauptkategorien der Sportler zu finden. Warum? Ganz einfach: Wir übersetzen einfach mal den Kategorienamen in die deutsche Sprache und dabei bekommen wir „Sportler der Olympischen Jugendwinterspiele 2020“. In einer Kategorie mit diesen Namen erwartet man also die Sportler, welche an dieser Veranstaltungen teilgenommen haben. Jetzt kommt bestimmt gleich wieder als Gegenwort, also man erwartet zum Beispiel die Kategorie Jessica Degenhardt at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics. Aber nein, diese Kategorie erwartet man nicht. Diese Kategorie erwartet wir in einer anderen Kategorie.
Aber in welcher? Eigentlich ist die Antwort auf die Frage ganz einfach. Natürlich in der Kategorie Athletes at 2020 Summer Youth Olympics. Auch hier übersetzten wir den Kategorienamen mal einfach in die deutsche Sprache: „Sportler bei den Olympischen Jugendwinterspielen 2020“ – In dieser Kategorie erwartet man natürlich die Sportler bei dieser Veranstaltung, also die Bilder von ihnen, welche bei der Veranstaltung aufgenommen wurden.
Fazit: Somit ist jetzt klar, dass die bisherige Kategorisierung, also die Sortierung von Katharina Althaus in 2012 Winter Youth Olympics sportspeople zum Beispiel, korrekt ist. Somit ist auch klar, dass ihr hier eine neue Kategorisierung einführen wollt, die es bisher nicht gab. Das habe ich aber auch schon öfters in meiner vorhergehenden Beitragen geschrieben, aber die Aussagen wurden ja nicht gehört.
Jetzt noch mal zum Thema „Zugeständnissen“. Eine Zugeständnis wäre es, wenn ihr endlich einsehen würdet, dass der Kategoriebaum People at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics zusätzlich ist und dass damit Kategorien, wie Selina Egle at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics, nicht mehr als unbedingt notwendig erachtet werden. --Xxlfussel (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Die Aussagen werden nicht gehört, weil sie falsch sind: Es wurde mehrmals erklärt, wieso das zwei verschiedene Stränge sind, die beide gemäß Commons-Regeln valide sind. „Somit ist auch klar, dass ihr hier eine neue Kategorisierung einführen wollt“ ist ein logischer Fehlschluss (und eine Unverschämtheit zugleich, zumal es nun x-mal widerlegt wurde). Übersetzungen von Kategorien können schwerlich überhaupt als Argumente gelten. Den Unterschied von Tag-Kategorien gegenüber Bild-Kategorien hast du noch immer nicht verstanden (und den Primat der letzteren gegenüber der ersten, wie belegt). Es bringt nichts, immer wieder alles nochmal zu diskutieren. Schäm dich, was für ein falsches Spiel du hier gespielt hast, indem du nicht vorhandene Positionen mehrerer Personen vorzugaukeln versucht hast. Du bist hier ganz allein mit deiner Position. Es hilft auch nicht, das weiter aufzubauschen; natürlich will keiner die immer gleichen elendig langen Diskussionen lesen, um eine Entscheidung zu treffen. Ich bin hier schon lange raus und bitte darum, nicht weiter angepingt zu werden. Such dir eine andere Arbeitsstelle, die du versuchen kannst, kaputt zu schlagen, aber spiel wenigstens sauber. (PS: „Ich habe die Eventkategorie durch die Jahreskategorie ersetzt und hatte es auch nie vor.“ Da fehlt ein „nicht“, sofern du deinen Widerspruch nicht komplett zementieren möchtest.) Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- „Es bringt nichts, immer wieder alles nochmal zu diskutieren.“ – Du siehst selbst, wohin es führt, wenn man nicht weiterdiskutiert und einen Kompromiss sucht. Es führt zu einem Stillstand. Diese Diskussion ist weiterhin nicht abgeschlossen und deswegen liegt das Projekt auch weiterhin auf Eis. Das kann auch nicht gewünscht sein, oder? Deswegen ist es sinnvoll weiter zu diskutieren, weil man nur durch einen Kompromiss diese Diskussion beenden kann. Ich bin weiterhin daran interessiert, einen Kompromiss zu finden. Somit liegt der Spielball bei euch, ob ihr auch daran interessiert seid.
- Du schreibst in deinem Beitrag folgendes: „Den Unterschied von Tag-Kategorien gegenüber Bild-Kategorien hast du noch immer nicht verstanden“ Mit dieser Aussage hast du vollkommen Recht. Du schreibst von den Begriff Tag-Kategorie in einen Kommentar weiteroben und erklärst dort, dass die „sportspeople“-Kategorie eine solche Kategorie ist. Du sagst aber nicht, was du unter diesen Begriff verstehst. Mir ist dieser Begriff hier auf Wikimedia Commons noch nicht über den Weg gelaufen.
- „Somit ist auch klar, dass ihr hier eine neue Kategorisierung einführen wollt“ – Diese Aussage von mir ist kein logischer Fehler und schon gar keine Unverschämtheit. Sie ist in Bezug auf die Überkategorie „Olympic Games“ korrekt. Die Kategorisierung wurde in Zuge der Olympischen Jugend-Sommerspiele 2018 eingeführt und dadurch wurde die Konsistenz der bisherigen Kategorisierung, zerstört. Deswegen ist es eine Unverschämtheit von dir, dass du meine Aussage als Unverschämtheit bezeichnest.
- „Ich habe die Eventkategorie durch die Jahreskategorie ersetzt und hatte es auch nie vor.“ – Da hast du recht, da fehlt ein „nicht“. Naja, so ein Fehler kann halt mal passieren. Aber es ist schön, dass du den Fehler bemerkt hast. Das bedeutet nämlich, dass du dir meinen Beitrag durchgelesen hast. Man hatte nicht immer den Eindruck, dass du und die anderen das immer getan hast.
- PS:
- Wieso sollte ich mich schämen? Ich habe nichts Verbotenes gemacht. Du solltest dich eher schämen. Zuerst beendest du als Involvierter parteiisch den Edit War, bevor ich mich überhaupt zu Wort melden konnte und dann willst du die Diskussion abschließen, als mir unverständlicher Weise eine einmonatige Zwangspause auferlegt wurde. Dies ist auch ohne Vorwarnung passiert. Deswegen solltest du vielleicht nicht so große Töne spucken und mir ein falsches Spiel vorwerfen.
- Zudem ist es eine Anmaßung von dir, mir nahezulegen, eine andere „Arbeitsstelle“ zu suchen. Erstens hast du kein recht mir so etwas nahezulegen und Zweitens bin ich schon Jahre lang auf WikiCommons in der „Sportabteilung“ tätig. Nur weil wir in diesen Punkt eine Meinungsverschiedenheit haben, werde ich doch nicht aus diesen Themengebiet verschwinden, welches mir sehr gut gefällt und in welchen ich mich auch auskenne.
- Mit freundlichen Grüßen --Xxlfussel (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Info just for the record: User:Paphia (see the user page) was a sockpuppet of Xxlfussel, both were involved in this discussion. --Sandro Halank (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
kept, but I read only English-language part of the discussion, that's enough for me. Taivo (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
All NHS logos are protected by Crown copyright in the UK. TheMuscovian (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep It cause more serious problems --TheMuscovian (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what's going on here, the nominator has added a "vote keep" !vote but if there is problems with copyright for the images themselves then they should be filed for deletion and if they all are deleted this will be deleted as empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- @TheMuscovian and Crouch, Swale: there is opened deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:National Health Service logos--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well yes if that empties this category then we can delete. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @TheMuscovian and Crouch, Swale: there is opened deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:National Health Service logos--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
no action.--RZuo (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The whole venue (building, garden etc.) officially opened to public in 2016. As a result, and since there's no FOP (Freedom Of Panorama) in Greece, any files in this category that represent the building, its interior, or other copyrighted material (such as statues and other artistic creations among others) should be deleted. Glorious 93 (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
To my under understanding, the proposal is about (most of) the files contained in the Category, and not the Category per se. So you need to tag the photos and relist the proposal. Glorious 93 do you need instructutions? -Geraki TLG 13:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Glorious 93 and Geraki: not discussion about the category (CFD), but discussion about files (DR). Discussion takes places at Category talk:Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Center, or at concrete, problematic files Estopedist1 (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- While this specific category only has one file, its siblings are well-populated. I believe that justifies the existence of this category. See also my comments on Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Kristina St. James. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- The outcome of this discussion should also apply to these discussions:
- * Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Alexis Texas in 2015
- * Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Alexis Texas in 2014
- – BMacZero (🗩) 19:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am
Neutral on whether a few dozen images are enough to need diffusion by year, but I strongly believe that if we're going to do it, we either do it for all years (including years where we have only one image) or we don't do it at all. So I guess count me as Keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC) - Category:Alexis Texas in 2015 and Category:Alexis Texas in 2014 actually has two or more images, so this discussion should not apply to those two categories. 114.142.168.51 05:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: FredWalsh should avoid wikilawyering on unrelated tangents in his anti-pron crusade. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why "obviously"? Do you have a policy-based reason for keeping? If you don’t like the policy, ask for it to be changed from plural to singular. FredWalsh (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Read the words of the policy carefully - it states the plural. FredWalsh (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- media can be single or plural. Or what is the singular of media? Tm (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Tm: Media is the plural for "medium". Read the fourth paragraph of the lead in that WP article. FredWalsh (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- And read "" It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure."" in the policy you cite, and see that this is a proper category Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/06/Category:Single item categories
- And where have I suggested the single file should be completely de-categorised? There are appropriate higher-level categories it should be put into. FredWalsh (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- And read "" It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure."" in the policy you cite, and see that this is a proper category Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/06/Category:Single item categories
- @Tm: Media is the plural for "medium". Read the fourth paragraph of the lead in that WP article. FredWalsh (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- media can be single or plural. Or what is the singular of media? Tm (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment Deleting this category is adding one more item that in the future will be again have this same category and this category with Wikidata item and 120 articles. And nothing in this policy prohibits the existence that a category to have only one image, and the "rationale" is trying to spine something that is in the introduction and that doesn't mention implicitly or explicitly and there is one phrase that is clear that " It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure.". If every file should be browsed using the category structure, what is more proper? Having a proper category or being lost in a category with hundreds of other files, like you FredWalsh are attempting to make. Also why, when there are several categories with a single file, you concentrate in categories related with pornography? Was not enough that you tried to make the same thing 4 years ago and it was rejected in Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/06/Category:Single item categories? Tm (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, so one category I created was proposed for deletion and therefore I should go cower in a corner. Grow up Tm. Read the policies and apply them rather than your personal rules. Have a look at each nomination I have made. Not one was for this imaginary "anti-pornography" crusade you keep referring to. Almost every single file or category was deleted for policy reasons. The fact that you don’t like a policy is your problem. Feel free to request a change of policy. FredWalsh (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Grown up yourself and read again the policies and not your own personal tastes and bias and if you think that categories should have more than one item "feel free to request a change of policy" (and all persons that commented against your assertatiosn in the categories discussions that you have opened), and read again ten times the Category discussion and you will see that there was not an proposition to delete this category and in fact was moved to a category that has been empty for the last four years in Category:Single item categories (User:FredWalsh). Like an administrator said 4 years ago, "leave us a note when your crusade is done so that we can clean up the crumbs". Tm (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I started an essay at Commons:Category inclusion criteria and comments might be helpful there. The question is is it helpful to have a category with only 1 image. If the people are notable (or at least there is some reasonable coverage) then we might keep the categories since its likely at least there will be more files in the future. If there is doubts about inclusion then maybe the images should be nominated for deletion since if deleted the categories would be automatically deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Okki, BMacZero, FredWalsh, Tm, and Mutter Erde: I've taken the liberty of moving your following comments to this page to centralize discussion of this issue. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of the number of media available, each notable person should systematically have her own category. In the categories place of birth, year of birth, profession, school attended... it's much cleaner to have sub-categories with people's names rather than thousands of photos in bulk. Okki (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is your personal feeling but it is not the policy agreed by the Commons community. If you wish to change the policy, please request it in an RFC. FredWalsh (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Okki. I have not generally seen that part of the category policy interpreted that way; if the policy was trying to say "categories must have more than one image", that would be stated explicitly. We do discourage categories with very few images in cases where they might demonstrate over-diffusion, but there is a sound structural reason to have this category. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Deleting this category is adding one more item that in the future will be again have this same category and this category with Wikidata item and 10 articles. And nothing in this policy prohibits the existance that a category to have only one image. Also why, when there are several categories with a single file, you concentrate in categories related with pornography? Tm (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Read the words of the policy carefully - it states the plural. FredWalsh (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Read the the policy that "It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure." and do not shove your personal opinion. Tm (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. Why? Mutter Erde (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Mutter Erde: She has been active in adult entertainment since 1983 - about 37 years. We have one freely-licensed photo of her, from 2006. If there is only one photo in 37 years for an entertainer who is already 55 years old, I think the chances of getting one more photo are very unlikely. FredWalsh (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Racquel Darrian's category will be very crowded some day, even when you have to wait for 100 years. She has 13 wikipedia-articles and has made 102 movies plus countless pictorials in magazines as "Penthouse," "Hustler," "Playboy," "Velvet," and "Cheri.... (Source: IMdB). Mutter Erde (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- 13, mostly brief, articles sourced to unreliable websites. I look forward to her Greatest Hits album in ten years time but despite all this "glory", we have just one free-to-reuse photo of her. That fact seems to consistently evade all the ardent fans arguing for her category to stay. I keep citing actual policies but in return get a barrage of "Why not"? FredWalsh (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Racquel Darrian's category will be very crowded some day, even when you have to wait for 100 years. She has 13 wikipedia-articles and has made 102 movies plus countless pictorials in magazines as "Penthouse," "Hustler," "Playboy," "Velvet," and "Cheri.... (Source: IMdB). Mutter Erde (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Mutter Erde: She has been active in adult entertainment since 1983 - about 37 years. We have one freely-licensed photo of her, from 2006. If there is only one photo in 37 years for an entertainer who is already 55 years old, I think the chances of getting one more photo are very unlikely. FredWalsh (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note that the outcome of this discussion should apply to a number of other similar discussions that can be found at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2020/05. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep My belief is that for individual people, either they are sufficiently notable (in a Commons sense) to get their own category, or they are non-notable and all their images should be deleted per COM:SCOPE. (Note: This applies to public figures only, not pictures of random people that may have illustrative merit.) For me there is no middle ground of "sure, we can keep your picture up, but you don't get a category". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: as you state, this is your belief and I can respect that. Could you also address the deletion reason - the policy states that categories are for multiple pages, rather than a single page. FredWalsh (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- That is an incredibly literal reading of the policy. In most cases, when a word is used in the plural it includes the case of only one item unless it is explicitly excluded. For example, take the sentence: "I will go to the party and say hi to the other people there." If only one other person shows up, do you not say hi to them because they are technically not "people"? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Your example is not a good one. You should say hi for social reasons but not for the singular/plural reason you’re suggesting. It is as simple as this - Commons is filled with single-item categories - partly due to people creating them because they think it’s obligatory. Wherever a category I’ve nominated has had a second page legitimately added to it, I’ve withdrawn the nomination. Deep down, what I’m really doing is challenging people to find a second free-to-reuse file to go in the category and make my DR redundant. Look at the history of this category - four years without a second file added, more than 13 years since Dirty Bob licensed the photo. There is a policy called Commons:EVIDENCE, which is about the burden of proof lying with those who want to keep a photo on Commons. The same burden should lie with those who want to keep this and similar categories. Yet what I get is a barrage of "why not?” FredWalsh (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- This reminds me of people who wikilawyer over inclusive vs. exclusive or when interpreting Wikipedia policies and guidelines. When used without further context, "or" should generally be taken to be inclusive. Likewise, a definition of something as a collection of things generally allows for it to contain just one thing, e.g. Set (mathematics). Everyone else here interprets the policy differently from you, so I think you should drop the stick and accept that your interpretation of policy is unorthodox. By the way, COM:EVIDENCE applies to files, not categories. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- And what you’re doing here is not wiklawyering? How about pointing to some Comins-policy-based reasons for keeping rather than pointing to WP? I didn’t say COM:EVID applied to categories, just that it should. FredWalsh (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I am not pointing to any WP policies; I am pointing to informational pages about rhetorical techniques which apply equally here. We are pointing to the same Commons policy, COM:CAT, and coming to different conclusions about it. When multiple interpretations of the same text are possible, absent further clarification the common-sense interpretation should prevail, and the one who stands in the way of that interpretation is wikilawyering. It is often not possible to tell prima facie which is the common-sense interpretation, so the best you can do is poll a bunch of people and see how they would most naturally understand it. While discussions are not a vote, the fact that everyone else has read the same text differently from you is a pretty good indication. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- I didn’t say you were pointing at WP policies, just you have twice pointed to WP pages to make an argument here. The common-sense interpretation would be that one is singular and two or more is plural. By the way, when you say everyone, I assume you are not including the admins who deleted the pages I have nominated for deletion before. This is not a lonely crusade I’m on. If you could take a look at any DR I have started, it has always been based on policy, rather than the vague accusations made here and elsewhere that I am "anti-porn". FredWalsh (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Categories are literally required to be included in a VI scope if a person with only one photo on Commons is nominated on COM:VIC. Deleting this will set a dangerous precedent for all single-file categories, and will just damage COM:VIC and probably other projects. I really don't see what we will gain here from deleting this category. --pandakekok9 03:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Pandakekok9: Commons:Valued image criteria #6 talks about categorization at an appropriate level. It does not say the image should have its own category. Please could you address the deletion reason - the policy uses the plural, not the singular. FredWalsh (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- So you think that my creation of Category:Franz Georg Timmesfeld is wrong? pandakekok9 01:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Pandakekok9: Ok, well let's examine that category then. Criterion 6 says:
- "Is well categorized at an appropriate level.
- Leaving aside the hidden categories, the category is itself listed under four categories, each of which could quite easily be used for the photo (Category:1943 births, Category:Franz (given name), Category:Mathematicians from Germany, Category:20th-century mathematicians)
- "The image should normally be categorized to a reasonable specific level (that is, if a specific category is available the image should be put into that, and not into a higher-level category).
- "Reasonable" is a subjective word but the categories listed just above are reasonable categories. A specific category was not available at the time but it does not say that such a category should be created.
- Several categories should be used if appropriate, at least one of which should relate in some fairly direct way to the claimed scope (although it need not be the same).
- As above, four categories would have been appropriate for the photo. Two of those are highly relevant (the mathematician ones).
- If no suitable categories currently exist, the nominator should create them before nominating. Images may optionally be added to any relevant content-related gallery.
- This is where I believe you may have misunderstood the criterion. Just before you created Category:Franz Georg Timmesfeld, there were four suitable categories already in existence (the ones listed above). It does not say that you should create a specific category for the file, just that you should create them IF no suitable ones exist.
- "Is well categorized at an appropriate level.
- Linking that back to my assertion that the policy literally uses the plural, I think you should not have created that category. FredWalsh (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Pandakekok9: Your creation of Category:Franz Georg Timmesfeld was a good thing, and thank you for it. That even such a clear-cut instance of good curation can be challenged under this bizarre quibble shows how anti-pr0n worriors are ready to dammage the project to get to their goal: Since they cannot have all images of pornstars deleted they go for categories, and if along with minor pornstars they find objectionable the deletionist hammer falls down also on mathematicians — that seems to be collateral dammage some can accept. Now here’s an interesting thought experiment: What would have happened if instead of Category:Bunny Bleu this CfD had been raised against Category:Franz Georg Timmesfeld? How long would have it taken for this discussion to be closed and its proponent firmly trouted? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: can you point to a single deletion request where I used "pornography" as a deletion rationale? I am asking you to politely withdraw your allegation that I am anti-porn. On the contrary all of my successful nominations have been for policy-based reasons such as copyright. Yes, I know copyright is inconvenient for you but it is Wikimedia Commons, not Wiki-Tuvalkin. FredWalsh (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- @FredWalsh: Thanks, I guess, for inspiring the mental image that you’re an avid pornography fan instead, but frankly I don’t care eitherway: No matter what is motivating your disruption attempts, they need to stop — you’re wasting everybody’s time and atttracting deletionist vandalism. Now, politely explain what the heck do you mean when you say that you «know copyright is inconvenient for» me. Now, that’s an unexpected accusation, to say the least… Or then again, don’t even bother: Your trolling is transparent and unappreciated. I will ignore your further pinging. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- So you waited two weeks since my last comment to again accuse me of one extreme (being anti-porn) and when I ask you to withdraw the accusation, you immediately swing to the other extreme and accuse me of being pro-porn. That is trolling behaviour because you cannot accept that I might be neither fit or against pornography. My mention of copyright being inconvenient is because you don’t acknowledge that copyright (rather than pornography) is the basis of most of the deletion nominations I have made. Instead the "anti-porn" argument is a safety blanket for any DR even remotely related to photos you’d prefer to see kept. What you don’t seem to accept is that the overwhelming majority of my DRs resulted in deletion by admins. Perhaps multiple administrators were also wrong in their interpretations of the DRs? FredWalsh (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Pandakekok9: Ok, well let's examine that category then. Criterion 6 says:
- So you think that my creation of Category:Franz Georg Timmesfeld is wrong? pandakekok9 01:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: As already mentioned above, please compare this CfD with Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/06/Category:Single item categories. @Achim55 and Auntof6: might be of interest. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @BMacZero: this is the sort of response I got the last time I tried to group these kinds of nominations together. My only intention at the time was to tag these categories together and create one nomination but I immediately got jumped by those who think copyright is a trivial issue. Despite beating a dead horse as Tuvalkin is doing, the result was that I moved the category to a sort of pseudo-userspace. FredWalsh (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @FredWalsh: I don't think anyone here is criticizing how this request is formatted (though they should correct me if I'm wrong); they mostly seem to be criticizing your motivations for opening these requests in the first place. I would suggest to everyone that it's not very useful to discuss FredWalsh's motivations here; this is a discussion about a category and we are creating a lot of irrelevant banter a closing user is going to have to wade through. FredWalsh, I would suggest that you make sure you're willing to change your belief about the category policy if it turns out to be wrong. No user here (and there are many) has agreed with your interpretation, yet you're continuing to push the exact same arguments on each new user who responds. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @BMacZero: this is the sort of response I got the last time I tried to group these kinds of nominations together. My only intention at the time was to tag these categories together and create one nomination but I immediately got jumped by those who think copyright is a trivial issue. Despite beating a dead horse as Tuvalkin is doing, the result was that I moved the category to a sort of pseudo-userspace. FredWalsh (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- logs of cat:Mia Khalifa show how frustrating and unnecessary it is to press for deletion of categories that can be reasonably soon populated. in oct 2019 four youtube videos of Mia Khalifa were made cc-by, and so the cat could easily be filled with multiple files.
- it's fairly easy to obtain free files for living persons and contemporary events.
- as such, i suggest, if a category is expected to receive free files reasonably easily, and the category corresponds to pages on other wiki projects, such a category should be allowed to exist, even if there are zero files in it.--RZuo (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
This seems like an excessive categorization for two files. Is there a need for categorization by thing being pronounced? It would be insanely oddly organized. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: to me also it seems to be too specific categorizing. To be upmerging--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Done: already deleted. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The title may be incorrect. There are probably many categories like this. "Panoramic" is an adjective, as in "panoromic photograph". The correct word is "panorama". Bubba73 (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Title appears to be correct based on parent category, Category:Panoramics of the United States by state. --Ebyabe (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Closed. Not a problem particular for this individual category, as naming is consistent with category tree. May be moved in the future as part of general renaming as discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/02/Category:Panoramics. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
merge with category:Tunas (also DAB) Estopedist1 (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've added more entries to the Tuna DAB page but they could be merged or maybe kept separate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose "Tunas" is not necessarily the plural of "Tuna". They are different names, needing different disambiguations, and should therefore be kept separate.-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep both, as per DarwIn. There should be a see also to the other DAB page, however. --rimshottalk 16:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept as separate categories. It has been more than two years, and there is no consensus for a merge. (non-admin closure) Marbletan (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
It is a subcat of Reading and surprisingly Reading is a subcat of Literacy. Some native speaker could correct the mess please... E4024 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Since Category:Literacy has no subcategories except Category:Reading, it can't really be the parent category. Remove Category:Reading from Category:Literacy. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support: this would also harmonise with the way the categorisation is done on enwiki. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@E4024, Themightyquill, and 1234qwer1234qwer4: It looks like this problem has been solved. Can this discussion be closed? JopkeB (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think so. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Recategorization (has already been Done) | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
See also: Category talk:Saloon coaches of Canada. problematic (?) requested move: {{Move|Lounge cars of Canada|use North American terminology|2020-03-25}} Estopedist1 (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Done: stale, no consensus for what would be a very involved set of changes. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Please see Revision history of "Category:Slavic victims of the Inquisition". Are there two types of victims? Normal "victims" and "Slavic Victims". I came back to Commons to close my eyes to this kind of -sorry- stupidities and simply work; but one feels responsable and cannot ignore. Whatever. Discuss as you wish. I will continue with less nerve-wearing activities. E4024 (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, complete bollocks. None of the three cases that have subcategories in this category even had the Inquisition involved in any form whatsoever, and one of them isn't even a case of religiously motivated persecution by any stretch of the imagination. And the Inquisition never targeted Slavs as such elsewhere either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Done: Empty cat. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Commmons is not Facebook.. photos of a non-notable person. Saqib (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep As long as somebody has an article on at least one of the projects, the images and the category (if present) should remain. In this case this person is described on the Urdu Wikipedia: https://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86_%D8%B3%DB%81%DA%AF%D9%84. Kind regards, Elly (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please note, the images are in a Deletion request, please note Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ehsan Sehgal. Perhaps against policy? Elly (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Note information - He is hired one, and misusing the project, his gang of users illegitimately deleted the notable article cited with most authentic sources 3 times Keep, now he is here and also another encyclopedia, violating the privacy of the author that seems something is in the bottom. Look at these references-
http://fp.brecorder.com/2012/11/201211281262062/
https://archive.is/qcbx7
https://www.dawn.com/news/1325879
https://jang.com.pk/news/569695
1 - https://www.express.pk/story/1558422/1/ ---[this is a new source]
11 - https://archive.md/X7LlN
- For Wikipedia, saved links -
- Business recorder news = https://archive.vn/hs255
- Dawn = https://archive.vn/pcS2V
- B.Rec - national news = https://archive.vn/dQkfP
- Daily Roshni- = https://archive.vn/AMSu5
- Kashmir Monitor = https://archive.vn/BMD3W
- Geo Urdu = http://archive.is/UIBzL
- Ehsan Sehgal Aik shuks - Express = https://archive.vn/x8dlW
- Nawaiwaqt = https://archive.vn/2noF3
- Pak Chronecle = https://archive.vn/Fo4XH
- Express India Diplomate = https://archive.vn/FYLDj
- Jang books Sehgal= https://archive.vn/PNVBx
- Jang News Sehgal = https://archive.vn/Fc4dS
- Quote ABS News TV = https://archive.vn/O2eb6
- Jang Feb Songs News = https://archive.vn/w8JJA
- Pak Chronicle - Dutch Fiction = https://archive.vn/pFRn0
- Jang, Book Flight of Vision = https://archive.vn/P27JH
= http://archive.vn/c2IsP
http://archive.vn/hM3bd
http://archive.vn/Nv6n0
http://archive.vn/Qa640
http://archive.vn/43kPY
http://archive.vn/qLdkI
http://archive.vn/YxO5N
http://archive.vn/bWaX5
http://archive.vn/nxVTl
I do not know Urdu, and I am blocked on wikipedia by his gang.
Now he will surely delete Urdu article which was already spoiled by his instructions. Is there no one who respects the policies and applies to his ill motives and sick hegemony. Time will prove his and his gang's bad faith. 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 20:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Since I follow - with no comments 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 20:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
stale discussion. Keep per Commons:Category inclusion criteria--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Kept, there are articles on this person on several projects. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
This category (and the subsequent categorization of five images into three separate year categories) seems a bit unnecessary. All five images can be categorized with the school and Kali Puja within the state without it being overwhelmed. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted this and its subcats. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Who is she? Why would we have a category for her? E4024 (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is a Wikidata entry, which makes the image/category automatically in scope. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024, BMacZero, and Jura1: deleted from enwiki in 2017. Deletion request in Wikidata (wikidata:Q20676649) is started--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have declined the RfD on Wikidata. It does meet Wikidata's notability criteria. Esteban16 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I also work (and hard :) in WD and respect its own criteria. However we can still prescind the cat and keep her only pic in "hubby"s cat, and also in WD of course. --E4024 (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have declined the RfD on Wikidata. It does meet Wikidata's notability criteria. Esteban16 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024, BMacZero, and Jura1: deleted from enwiki in 2017. Deletion request in Wikidata (wikidata:Q20676649) is started--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
IMO this cat and subcats should be renamed to using Ming Dynasty in order to align with the parent cat. Roy17 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Roy17: sounds logical. By the way, enwiki has en:Category:Military history of the Ming dynasty Estopedist1 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Military of the Ming Dynasty.--Roy17 (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
No need for a single image category. And of course she is not "gardening" but "modelling". Our children who will enter Category:Gardeners do not deserve to see this image. BTW she is not a gardener, either. Note: I could simply take the image to some other cat and ask SD for this one. For the sake of a really educational Commons I ask support from people. I am not opening a crusade on naked women, I am only saying that women showing genitalia do have other better cats to be placed in, rather than a one-file-only subcat of Category:Gardeners. Could I make myself clear? E4024 (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- We do not even have a Category:Female gardeners (although we do have the ladies!) but this one. How do you find that? I will say this openly: People should refrain using Commons for their sexual fantasies. This is an educational project. Just like in Medicine College anatomy classes we can expose genitalia images (in the proper categories) but "this" is something different. Sorry. --E4024 (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - This category exists for the simple reason that if you put naked people in Category:Gardening then people complain that Commons has porn everywhere. There was a famous example using a toothbrush which caused the creation of Category:Nude or partially nude people with electric toothbrushes. This is a bad solution, but it's the least bad solution. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral. In general, I don't tolerate 1-3-members categories, but I am not sure where to upmerge it safely. But seems to be obvious that she is gardening--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Nude gardening: Seems no need to have the gender-specific sub-category of this given the lack of content. As for the actual file here, it doesn't really matter if she is just modelling or actually gardening, it is a depiction of gardening none-the-less. We can add that image additionally to Nude female humans due to capture that aspect. Josh (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @E4024, @Mattbuck, @Estopedist1: Any objection to merging into Category:Nude gardening so we can close this? Josh (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fine with me. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @E4024, @Mattbuck, @Estopedist1: Any objection to merging into Category:Nude gardening so we can close this? Josh (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Merge into Category:Nude gardening, can revisit later if there is a surge of content | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||