Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2014/12
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 December 2014
Incorrect spelling Alan Liefting (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Corrected: Thanks for your point out. Based on official page, correct category name into Category:Malaysia International Guitar Festivall 2013. best, --Clusternote (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Malaysia International Guitar Festivall 2013 as per nom. --rimshottalk 20:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Addendum: Moved further to Category:Malaysia International Guitar Festival 2013, misspelling of festival. --rimshottalk 07:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Ich möchte diese Seite gelöscht haben. Ich habe sie, wie auch schon eine andere Seite, falsch angelegt. Nixnubix (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Speedily deleted, obvious misspelling. --rimshottalk 21:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Redundant personal category. Buxtehude (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like accidental creation to me, but even if it isn't, it's obviously out of scope. --rimshottalk 21:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Speedily deleted, accidental creation. --rimshottalk 21:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Now unused+empty, was hidden with one image, was subcat of also hidden Category:PD_OpenClipart. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment I'm sorry to create almost duplicate category and leave it.
- By the way, although the most CC/PD websites are registered under Category:Images_from_websites, however, the several websites including openclipart.org are not found under it; and as a result, the proper categorization method for the files from these websites (i.e. adding {{PD-OpenClipart}} tag, etc) are slightly hard to find in the view point of newbies. In my opinion, if the Category:Images_from_openclipart.org was exist, these newbies (including me) or license reviewers might easily find the proper categorization method using license tag. best, --Clusternote (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, hard to find, and I "solved" the issue for File:Leone_02_architetto_fran_01.svg by adding an unnecessary {{PD-OpenClipart}} to {{PD-author}}. Your category was also hidden with only one file, so that didn't help me.
- Odd idea, how about changing {{PD-OpenClipart}} to populate your category, unhide that, and allow to use it also directly. After that the hidden license cat could be removed, it is exclusively populated by the PD template. I think one cat is good enough, and a visible cat (instead of hidden) would be better. Unless "images from x" categories are generally considered as bad idea, I can't tell what's the preferred style for similar sources. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- As you said, {{PD-OpenClipart}} (a dedicated license template for showing license and categorization based on license) seems slightly useless, because it can be substituted with {{PD-author}} tag and the explicit addition of Category:PD_OpenClipart. However, because I don't know why the openclipart.org website have been specially treated on Wikimedia Commons, and to avoid the further troubles or the expansion of the issues, I want to respect the conventional manner with conservative attitude.
- On the other hand, existing Category:PD_OpenClipart seems lack the consistency with Category:Images_from_websites system, because it is merely the license category, and its author want to prohibit the explicit addition of category (instead of adding {{PD OpenClipart}}). Under this situation, the newbies of openclipart.org couldn't find the appropriate source category from under the Category:Images_from_websites, and even they couldn't find the conventional license tag {{PD OpenClipart}}.
- If the Category:Images_from_openclipart.org was exist as upper category of it, the newbies could easily find the preliminary source category with minimum effort (i.e. typing "Category:Images from " on search box). And even if they ignored the conventional manner using {{PD OpenClipart}}, the license reviewers could easily fix it on the later. Thus, the category Category:Images_from_openclipart.org may inevitable. ... --Clusternote (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sanity check, are you suggesting to put Category:PD OpenClipart into this category? I'm not convinced that this would help, but testing it for a year or so would be fine, i.e., I'd withdraw this CfD, because getting a consensus to change {{PD-OpenClipart}} might be more convoluted. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for my slow response, and thank you for kindly offer a chance of sanity check. Yes, I think Category:Images_from_openclipart.org is superior than the {{PD OpenClipart}}, because former can be easily managed using "Cat-a-lot" gadget. ... and its effectiveness should be examined in the field test, IMO.
- Currently, nearly 400 images from openclipart.org are scattered with other licenses than {{PD OpenClipart}}, so, I'll add these on this category. --Clusternote (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn, Clusternote has a plan. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Ich möchte diese Seite gelöscht haben. Ich habe sie falsch angelegt. Nixnubix (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Speedily deleted, obvious misspelling. --rimshottalk 21:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Empty. Duplicate with Category:Eastern Cemetery (Minsk). --195.50.31.213 04:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 22:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
rename to Category:Air pollution in France Alan Liefting (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Just needs deletion now. I moved the contents. Alan Liefting (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Air pollution in France, obvious misspelling. --rimshottalk 19:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
rename to Category:Oil industry in Sabah Alan Liefting (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Fixed per nom, Special:Movepage worked for the category. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
To be deleted. Only file is a an Institution stub which has been nominated for deletion. One file moved to new cat Collections of Palazzo d'Arco. PKM (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- use {{speedy|empty}} et amen--Sailko (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 19:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
how brilliant two members of staff were in victoria bus station to me and my wife at our time of need 77.98.112.29 20:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's a category of pictures here, discussing it can't heal whatever went wrong for you. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Nothing done, not a category discussion. --rimshottalk 19:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Use lower case "p". Alan Liefting (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Environmental projects in Denmark, as per nom.: obvious misspelling. --rimshottalk 22:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Move to Category:Environmental protection vessels of Denmark Alan Liefting (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Make it so. For what it's worth I created COM:REDCAT to find the possible next steps (redirect or speedy) faster. I think this is a "trivial" or "unambiguous" (not "controversial") case on the rename page. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Environmental protection vessels of Denmark as per nom.: obvious misspelling. --rimshottalk 22:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this is the same person as Category:Elijah --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- The name sounds similar, but he is a different prophet. I put the proper wikilink to the page so that there can be no more confusions. I created the category using his Latin name, being more familiar (and mor difficult to confuse with other two biblical names, Elishah and Elijah), but perhaps we should move it to his English form, Elisha, anyway? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha I leave the decision to those of us who are looking after the biblical pages. Best wishes. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Closed, folks agreed on a solution. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Wat the Dog is Trying to Tell You Remember-How (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- What are you trying to tell us? --rimshottalk 22:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Nothing done, no reason for discussion given. --rimshottalk 20:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
This category should be deleted, Frank Louis kramer is not the only Frank Kramer anymore. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Disambiguate it, then, so that it does not get re-created. --rimshottalk 22:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- What do you mean? There is a Category:Frank Kramer (footballer) and a Category:Frank Louis Kramer. A redirect from Category:Frank Kramer to either one and not the other is ambiguous. What else do you suggest? --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest a disambiguation category like this one. --rimshottalk 17:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I see, thank you. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest a disambiguation category like this one. --rimshottalk 17:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- What do you mean? There is a Category:Frank Kramer (footballer) and a Category:Frank Louis Kramer. A redirect from Category:Frank Kramer to either one and not the other is ambiguous. What else do you suggest? --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Rimshot suggested to turn in it into a disambiguation page. So I did. If this is the right thing to do, the discussion request can be closed. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for going ahead so quickly. I will close the discussion as the matter seems settled to me. --rimshottalk 21:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguated, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 21:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
uytiuyfty_urtf Elhabichi jamal (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Closed - proprietary CFD encryption. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete this category, because it's empty. Alfasst (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
naruto shipudem 105.172.5.92 08:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- See w:en:List_of_Naruto:_Shippuden_episodes vs. w:en:List_of_Naruto_episodes, and if you want to fix something with the categories here, have fun. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- naruto shippuden is a 2nd parte, but not all. (sorry for my english) --Chatsam (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Don’t undertand this user’s point ; Naruto Shippuden is the name of the second part of the anime adaptation of Naruto. Schlum (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Nothing done, the discussion appears to have been accidentally opened. --rimshottalk 18:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete - was used by a now deleted template. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Speedy delete, ugh, COM:SPEEDY has no obviously unused cruft clause. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:No creator infobox. --rimshottalk 22:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Rename to Emissiosn trading per convention. Alan Liefting (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- JFTR, Category:Emission trading. Do we need file mover rights to rename categories? I tested Special:Movepage in the Creator namespace, and it worked. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Done with Special:Movepage to Emissions trading. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect naming scheme and duplicate of category:Army of Peru. ErickAgain 14:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please delete it, I did it by mistake... sorry. MarcoMogollon (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete, in theory we could close the CFD and flip the "delete" to "speedydelete", but if then somebody reverts to "delete" it would be messy. IOW, it's better if an admin deletes the unused category and closes this CFD. Keeping a redirect could be also okay , see COM:REDCAT if you think that's better. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Category:Maps in Ukraine language must be merged with Category:Maps in Ukrainian 217.21.43.22 16:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed, untested, I think you could also do this without login and without CFD, cf. COM:REDCAT and {{Category redirect|Maps in Ukrainian}}. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete and merge contents into Category:Computer peripherals. Alan Liefting (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I ask to delete this redirect witn a typo. Juggler2005 (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
CfD due to typo in title. Category with correct title "Ataşehir Belediyespor vs İlkadım Belediyespor 2014-15" has been created. CeeGee (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
CfD due to wrong title. Correct category with title "Marmara Üniversitesi Spor vs Konak Belediyespor 2013-14" has been created. CeeGee (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Empty category. Duplicate of Category:Cartuja de Miraflores (Burgos) PKM (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Tinashe Valdo (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy close or similar, if you want it as {{Catcat}} just add the template after fixing the 172 files not yet sorted into one of the many subcategories. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Nothing done, no reason for discussion given. --rimshottalk 16:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Empty category. Self-promotion. BrightRaven (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Typo, needs to be Lord Elgin's tomb. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't Lord Elgin a bit too unspecific? I suppose there was more than one of them, for example de:Lord Elgin redirects to the 7th Earl of Elgin. They probably have tombs, too. I propose a rename to Category:Tomb of James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin, in keeping with the parent category. --rimshottalk 21:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Good idea - as long as the typo goes! Thanks -- Deadstar (msg) 09:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Tomb of James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin as per discussion. --rimshottalk 22:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Unsystematic category with unclear definition and purpose, incompatible with categorization structure. ŠJů (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
there is no "Chelsea tube station" Oxyman (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 17:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Empty and (no wonder, poorly worded) Adam37 (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- copied from talk page:
- sorry I don't remember this at all unless it was an uncategorized image on the new images section a few weeks ago?? WayneRay (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 17:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
No discussion required (approx duplicate) Adam37 (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- The D in CFD means "discussion", if it's not reqired you could just use {{category rename|objects in England}} or {{bad name|objects in England}} (= speedy) to implement your decision based on COM:REDCAT. Willing to do that for you and close this CFD, but what shall it be? –Be..anyone (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Didn't realize "Category:Objects in England" existed, but perhaps it needs to be renamed? All the subcategories of "Category:Objects by country" are in the form "Objects of XYZ". — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- At the moment of is empty, and in belongs to Category:Objects of the United Kingdom and Category:England. All objects in the in category use in instead of of. If that is not as it should be, it would need a new CFD for in. In other words, I'm closing this as done redirecting of to in. A new CFD could simply switch all in to of and swap the direction of the redirect next year (in two days :-) –Be..anyone (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Move to Educational Games? (plural?) -- Deadstar (msg) 10:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Make it so (= update 17 files incl. subcats), lower case g, please, and keep a {{category redirect|Educational games}} on the old category page. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Closed as done after adding a redirect template as shown above for the category of the redirect itself with its standard i18n info. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry. This category has a wrong name The Photographer (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've replaced the bogus parent category by a {{Speedy}}, the deletion requires admin rights. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Speedily deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 16:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
All files have been moved to the category with english name: Category:Bishop Jordan Brigde in Poznań Kapsuglan (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Was the result of a typo-Category:Sean McClory already exists We hope (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, badly named duplicate of Category:Sean McClory. --rimshottalk 17:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The title for this cat makes no sense, and is additionally not useful. All images should be in 'Buildings in Samarkand' and child cats. I request it be deleted after I recat all the files. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. I just found that obvious cases like this could be handled by {{bad name|Buildings in Samarkand}}, without CFD (or rather just closing the existing CFD as "done" if you decide that {{Bad name}} is good enough.) –Be..anyone (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Colonial Grid --Faqscl (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Прошу оставить эту категорию как {user category} --Bobyr (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be Category:Roasted corn? The only time "corn" normally pluralizes with an 's' that I'm aware of is if it refers to different strains of corn... or if it refers to the thing sort of like a callous on your foot. Jmabel ! talk 20:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Support, the form "corn" should apply here, compare Category:Corns (not pretty). --rimshottalk 20:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Strong support Just had the worst mental image of someone roasting their foot with corns on it... Hmmm EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Non-admin closure: Category moved and files re-categorized. DLindsley Need something? 19:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Bellamy Mansion, I have emtied this one ready for deletion. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK with me (the creator). I must have thought that there were many Bellamy Mansions around. Smallbones (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Smallbones: We could always rename the Bellamy Mansion category to Bellamy Mansion (Wilmington, NC) I just moved them the other way because there were only 7 in yours so it was easier. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- No big deal either way, I'd leave it as is. On the off chance that we need to change it, we can do it later. Smallbones (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Smallbones: We could always rename the Bellamy Mansion category to Bellamy Mansion (Wilmington, NC) I just moved them the other way because there were only 7 in yours so it was easier. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Nominate for deletion, category with single file and low chance of any more EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have no objections to the category deletion, since the image listed also has another category to list under. Maile66 (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the plural of Aircract aircrafts ? Vera (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, about 900 files + 30 subcategories for your field trip to COM:REDCAT. Please close when ready.–Be..anyone (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Updated based on following statements. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)- Absolutely no. Like spacecraft, watercraft, sheep, etc, the plural is the same as the singular form. This CFD is wholly and badly conceived, and anyone can discover that in any reliable English language dictionary or usage guide. This should be closed as being inappropriate or perhaps even frivolous.PeterWD (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep, the plural of aircraft is aircraft (cf. dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge Dictionary). --rimshottalk 16:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- This unnecessary discussion should be closed quickly, PeterWD is right. A simple linguistic error must not be allowed to put the whole category into question.
- NB: A quick glance at the Discussion page Aircraft would have avoided the entire matter: The entry dated 29 July 2009 about exactly this subject is self-explanatory. --Uli Elch (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Kept, the category name is fine, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 13:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
This category is empty, it has no files, ando only a subcategorie that also not has files. Duque Santiago (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty now. --rimshottalk 15:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
This category is empty, it has no files, it must be deleted. Duque Santiago (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty, at least one of the files formerly in it has been deleted in January. --rimshottalk 15:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
deletion request, Evangelisch-Lutherse Kerk ('s-Hertogenbosch) already exits Rosemoon (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Evangelisch-Lutherse Kerk ('s-Hertogenbosch). --rimshottalk 15:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
How is this category useful? Why not just put Category:Church elements in Emilia-Romagna in Category:Churches in Emilia-Romagna and get rid of this? Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Remove unneeded full stop. Alan Liefting (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
All these file should be in 'Buildings in Samarkand'. This cat is superflous and bad grammar. I have moved all files back to Category:Buildings in Samarkand and request this cat be deleted. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- А я не согласен все они не отражают ни сути здания, ни их понятия. Кроме того они все сделаны на фото-мыльницу с низким качеством поэтому их надо перенести. Я вчера начала серию новых фото здания с высоким разрешением Category:Buildings in Samarkand, new species And I do not agree they do not reflect the essence of any buildings or their concepts. In addition, they are all made in the image, a bar of soap with low quality so they must be transferred. Yesterday I began a series of new photos of the building with high resolution. --Bobyr (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you have uploaded images you think are stand outs, take them to COM:QI (nominations can be made here) and have others judge that, don't keep moving images around based on your subjective opinions of quality alone. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Вы упорно пропихиваете любимые Вами фото в Category:Buildings in Samarkand, тогда скажите что задания на этих фото: File:'Claudius Bombarnac' by Léon Benett 28.jpg и File:MASamarkandAlai1.jpg и File:Музей возле обсерватории М.Улугбека (Самарканд, Узбекистан).jpg --Bobyr (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Прошу оставить эту категорию как {user category} --Bobyr (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Empty category. Not needed at this stage. Ldorfman (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- This category is not empty and is needed. This architect received the most prestige prize in his and in your state. Yair-haklai (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Ldorfman, Please do not remove this category from Fredric R. Mann Auditorium without a discussion Yair-haklai (talk)
- Yair-haklai, you opened a discussion in my talk page at he.wiki, so please continue any discussion in one place. For this issue, as I explained there, the category is empty since we do not have, at this time, any pictures of the architects. All the pictures of his work can be found under the categories holding the names of the buildings he planned. When we will have pictures of the person himself, we would be able to re-open the category. Till then, as customary in the Commons, the categories contain images directly related to the categories' names - not to related issues. When we do not have relevant pictures, we do not open categories. That's the way things work here, and there's much sense in it. Ldorfman (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ldorfman You Should not empty a category and then complain that it is empty you have to start a discussion before doing it, it is not about us it is about you Yair-haklai (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- There were no files at this category. It contained only irrelevant "sub-category". Therefore it is totally not needed, at least till we get any relevant pictures. Ldorfman (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Ldorfman, Then bring it to its original position and let the community to decide. Yair-haklai (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand your stubbornness. Sorry, but this is a silly request, as we're the only ones so far discussing this issue. There are ways things are done here. You cannot open any category without any excuse. I guess you will learn it in the time being. Ldorfman (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I rest my caseYair-haklai (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand your stubbornness. Sorry, but this is a silly request, as we're the only ones so far discussing this issue. There are ways things are done here. You cannot open any category without any excuse. I guess you will learn it in the time being. Ldorfman (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Ldorfman, Then bring it to its original position and let the community to decide. Yair-haklai (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- There were no files at this category. It contained only irrelevant "sub-category". Therefore it is totally not needed, at least till we get any relevant pictures. Ldorfman (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ldorfman You Should not empty a category and then complain that it is empty you have to start a discussion before doing it, it is not about us it is about you Yair-haklai (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yair-haklai, you opened a discussion in my talk page at he.wiki, so please continue any discussion in one place. For this issue, as I explained there, the category is empty since we do not have, at this time, any pictures of the architects. All the pictures of his work can be found under the categories holding the names of the buildings he planned. When we will have pictures of the person himself, we would be able to re-open the category. Till then, as customary in the Commons, the categories contain images directly related to the categories' names - not to related issues. When we do not have relevant pictures, we do not open categories. That's the way things work here, and there's much sense in it. Ldorfman (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Ldorfman, Please do not remove this category from Fredric R. Mann Auditorium without a discussion Yair-haklai (talk)
Delete - the definition os "state of territory" is used for Australia and Category:Architectural_elements_in_Australia_by_state or territory already exists. Alan Liefting (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete - justification as above Kgbo
Deleted: INeverCry 17:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Löschen, delete Schofför (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
There are no cemeteries with this name. Also, no populated places use the name 'Khadzhibey'. This is an empty category. DLindsley Need something? 20:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 07:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Empty. Inappropriate advertising. Adam37 (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a duplicate of category:Benslie Keith D (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Benslie, as per nom. --rimshottalk 21:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a duplicate category of Category:Vicente Masip. Keith D (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fusiónese, dejando Vicente Masip, --Enrique Cordero (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Vicente Masip months ago, which isn't really much better or worse than the other direction would have been. Redirect kept. --rimshottalk 21:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Should be Category:Sun Innovations printers. Typo and poor grammer. Alan Liefting (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- The parent category is Category:SUN Innovations, which is probably incorrect as well. --rimshottalk 19:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- The logo in that cat shows the company name as Sun Innovations. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- The enWP article is en:SUN Innovations. I supposed that's good enough for our category name too, then. --rimshottalk 21:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- The logo in that cat shows the company name as Sun Innovations. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as empty after Commons:Deletion requests/Sun Innovations Images. --rimshottalk 21:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It is very rarely referred to as "Shard London Bridge". It is on London Bridge road, but it is called The Shard. Even the en.wiki article is called The Shard EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:The Shard as per nom. --rimshottalk 21:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
performance Roufique Razu (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Nothing done, no reason for discussion given. --rimshottalk 22:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Die korrekte Bezeichnung lautet Teepavillon und nicht Teehaus.
Quelle: Denkmaltopographie Bundesrepublik Deutschland
- Kulturdenkmäler in Rheinland-Pfalz / Kreis Bad Dürkheim
- Band 13.1, Seite 240. ISBN 3-88462-119-X
F. Riedelio (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
#REDIRECT [[:Category:Teepavillon in Ruppertsberg]]ersetzen durch{{category redirect|Teepavillon in Ruppertsberg}}, und zuletzt (5) diesen CFD mit Begründung "closed: DIY. ~~~~" eingepackt in {{Cfdh}} (CFD header=Kopf) und {{Cfdf}} (CFD footer=Fuss) als erledigt markieren. Plan B, wenn (1) nicht klappt vernehmlich quengeln. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Teepavillon in Ruppertsberg, as per nom. --rimshottalk 22:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Palm oil industry in Sabah Alan Liefting (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Make it so, about 50 files incl. subcategories. Keep a redirect, that doesn't require admin rights, but the edit history with three entries is anyway not "precious". –Be..anyone (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I did so. BMacZero (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Rename to Tire reuse. Alan Liefting (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Already done by User:Andy Dingley. BMacZero (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Merge with Category:Giuseppe Acerbi. Jonund (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- First part done, still to do:
- delete redirected old Creator:Guiseppe Acerbi,
- delete or redirect empty and unused Category:Guiseppe Acerbi,
optionally rename File:Guiseppe Acerbi AGE V16 1804.jpg,if renamed fix the image in new Creator:Giuseppe Acerbi,- close CFD as merged. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- 3+4 handled by {{Rename}} on File:Guiseppe Acerbi AGE V16 1804.jpg.
1 handled by {{Speedydelete}} on Creator:Guiseppe Acerbi.–Be..anyone (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)- 1 not handled by reverted {{Speedydelete}} on Creator:Guiseppe Acerbi. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann 4 August 2015. --Achim (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:History of agriculture in Australia Alan Liefting (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Contains just 1 file, moved it up one level and marked cat for speedy. --Achim (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann 4 August 2015. --Achim (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:Sugar cane farming in Australia per convention. Alan Liefting (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, if you're willing to fix the about 50 files + subcategories incl. your CFD for Queensland. FreeCol spells it as sugar cane (obligatory reference for wikidata :-) –Be..anyone (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a bot that can do it? Alan Liefting (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- COM:BOTS is something I haven't read or tested yet, I also can't tell if one of the commons tools (HotCat etc.) can do this directly. But I'm confident that this is a solved problem.
–Be..anyone (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- COM:BOTS is something I haven't read or tested yet, I also can't tell if one of the commons tools (HotCat etc.) can do this directly. But I'm confident that this is a solved problem.
- Is there a bot that can do it? Alan Liefting (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Sugar cane farming in Australia. --Achim (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:Sugar cane farming in Queensland per convention. Alan Liefting (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- 34 files + 3 subcategories anxiously awaiting your attempt with SoFixIt. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Sugar cane farming in Queensland. --Achim (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It is the same as Category:Chelonoidis carbonaria in zoos which is the currently accepted scientific name for this species. FakirNL (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Imho this is such a clean case, it could have been done with an ordinary move request. --Pitke (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I always like to be on the careful side of things. - FakirNL (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Merged content to Category:Chelonoidis carbonaria in zoos and set a redirect. --Achim (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete - duplicate of common land in England Adam37 (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not the same thing. "Common lands" are areas which are part of more than one civil parish. Although such areas exist in the south of England, they are perhaps more associated with the north of the country. It is a technical term used in local government legislation and for statistical purposes, and can cover a relatively large geographic area. Fylingdales Moor in North Yorkshire is probably one of the best known. This is entirely different from "common land", usually referred to as "commons", which is an area of land where "commoners" have certain rights to graze cattle, or harvest products, although these days it tends to mean an area where the public have a right to use the land for recreational activities. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- This sounds like a good explanation. Two questions: (1) Why is there so little content in here (only one category)? (2) Could you add a description to the category page, so that the question doesn't pop up again? --rimshottalk 22:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Kept, per Skinsmoke. It now has a description, too. --rimshottalk 06:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Can we please delete the category now I have found categories for all of its 3 photos. Adam37 (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, Adam37. This is a user category and it is part of a more sophisticated user categorizing system. Even when there are only 5 photos or one photo, this doesn't matter. And please, be so kind, if you are planning to remove user's categories, discuss BEFORE you start any action as this might strongly be considered vandalism. Thanks. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fine. Note you were the only one in England, which confessedly is somewhat of a non-country sadly, perhaps you would wish to move to United Kingdom as a positive from all this aspersion. Once again the only aspersion should be on England itself which is still very much being discussed by the powers that be in all parties! Adam37 (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- So perhaps it would have been the better move, to ask kindly, if I could change my user category to "United Kingdom"? Explaining the matter instead of just removing the categories? It is not a problem to change the name but please clairify the background of your request first next time. it is better for maintaining a good atmosphere here. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fine. Note you were the only one in England, which confessedly is somewhat of a non-country sadly, perhaps you would wish to move to United Kingdom as a positive from all this aspersion. Once again the only aspersion should be on England itself which is still very much being discussed by the powers that be in all parties! Adam37 (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted by INeverCry 16 February 2015. --Achim (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Empty category. There are no free picture of this person for now, so there's no need in the category. Ldorfman (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Ldorfman, Please do not remove this category from Fredric R. Mann Auditorium without a discussion Yair-haklai (talk)
- Yair-haklai, you opened a discussion in my talk page at he.wiki, so please continue any discussion in one place. For this issue, as I explained there, the category is empty since we do not have, at this time, any pictures of the architects. All the pictures of his work can be found under the categories holding the names of the buildings he planned. When we will have pictures of the person himself, we would be able to re-open the category. Till then, as customary in the Commons, the categories contain images directly related to the categories' names - not to related issues. When we do not have relevant pictures, we do not open categories. That's the way things work here, and there's much sense in it. Ldorfman (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ldorfman You Should not empty a category and then complain that it is empty you have to start a discussion before doing it, it is not about us it is about you Yair-haklai (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- There were no files at this category. It contained only irrelevant "sub-category". Therefore it is totally not needed, at least till we get any relevant pictures. Ldorfman (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Ldorfman, Then bring it to its original position and let the community to decide Yair-haklai (talk)
- I don't understand your stubbornness. Sorry, but this is a silly request, as we're the only ones so far discussing this issue. There are ways things are done here. You cannot open any category without any excuse. I guess you will learn it in the time being. Ldorfman (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Ldorfman, Then bring it to its original position and let the community to decide Yair-haklai (talk)
- There were no files at this category. It contained only irrelevant "sub-category". Therefore it is totally not needed, at least till we get any relevant pictures. Ldorfman (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ldorfman You Should not empty a category and then complain that it is empty you have to start a discussion before doing it, it is not about us it is about you Yair-haklai (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yair-haklai, you opened a discussion in my talk page at he.wiki, so please continue any discussion in one place. For this issue, as I explained there, the category is empty since we do not have, at this time, any pictures of the architects. All the pictures of his work can be found under the categories holding the names of the buildings he planned. When we will have pictures of the person himself, we would be able to re-open the category. Till then, as customary in the Commons, the categories contain images directly related to the categories' names - not to related issues. When we do not have relevant pictures, we do not open categories. That's the way things work here, and there's much sense in it. Ldorfman (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Ldorfman, Please do not remove this category from Fredric R. Mann Auditorium without a discussion Yair-haklai (talk)
Added Category:Fredric R. Mann Auditorium and Category:Engel House. Who doesn't like it that way may insert Category:Buildings designed by Zeev Rechter. --Achim (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept this category and added 2 subcats. --Achim (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Done Now it's the same as the situation in Category:Buildings designed by Dov Karmi. Ldorfman (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
There is already Category:Testudines in zoos which is (1) a scientific name, (2) an unambiguous name, and (3) double. FakirNL (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Testudines in zoos by Smooth O 28 December 2015. --Achim (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Does not seem to be used very much so other maint categories can beused instead. Alan Liefting (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy
- Since there are only 23 files in Category:Files from Freesound.org it is of very little use as a tracking category, although admittedly that category has only existed since March this year. Alan Liefting (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not at all sure that the template makes sense or works, but as long as its English version (I haven't checked German) apparently tries to populate this tracking category deleting only the tracking category won't make it better (digging through special:contributions/TeleComNasSprVen was a wild guess for this stray cat.) –Be..anyone (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Naming should be Louvre RF 2219 - The Virgin at the Fountain - Jacopo de' Barbari so that the cats are sorted by RF Oursana (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really understand what you mean but it seems that you nominated the wrong page. --Zolo (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- not completely as I consider the general naming of the sub cats with view to the sorting within this cat. Best would be to sort by title and accession number. Do you have any proposal?--Oursana (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That's the begin of a disaster, "about.me" will attract lots of selfies and similar crap, and the real purpose (something about about.me) can't help to promote a commercial web site. One photo now, let's silently kill this beast. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- It now has eight files in it but I still agree that we should delete it. We have to be careful not to promote commercial entities at the expense of educational usage. Alan Liefting (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Alan Liefting,Be..anyone - what would your alternative categorisation for these images be, ideally keeping them together in a group ? Would making this a hidden category be sufficient etc ? Nick (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- No need to keep them together. It is pretty low down the the educational usage hierarchy and a search will bring them all up anyway. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe [[:Category:About.me (company)]] for Category:About.me (company), or [[:Category:www.about.me]] for Category:www.about.me. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well Alan Liefting I guess we better be deleting Category:Microsoft then. Or how about Category:Facebook. And hey, Category:Qatar Airways is absolutely unacceptable commercial promotion. Your comments seriously make no sense. russavia (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- That does not necessarily follow from my comment. The companies you mention are a bit more notable and have significantly more images associated with them. They are therefore in need of categorisation. On the other hand there are only ten files in the About.me category. Since we don't have any prescriptive polices or guideline (as far as I can tell) on level of categorisation, or on the hosting of images relating to commercial organisations we have to make decisions on the fly. This is not really acceptable given that Commons hosts over 22 million files and it being a popular resource. Does that clarify things for you? Alan Liefting (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Let's not categorize living people into whatever social (FB, Google+, Twitter, …, LinkedIn, about.me) or other services (ISP, operating system, etc.) they happen to use, at least not here. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC) (linkedin.hamburg)
- Be..anyone have you even looked at the photos and their descriptions? Taking this off my watchlist now as it is evidently a pointless conversation. russavia (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Details
|
|---|
- Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I just removed about 80 off topic images from that cat, so I will rename it to Category:About.me (company). --Achim (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:About.me (company). --Achim (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
This category should be merged with Category:Museo de Santa Cruz in Toledo, or their subcategories should be rationalized into artworks in the museum and features of the historic structure. PKM (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 6 April 2016. --Achim (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Rename to Greenhouse gas emissions. More exact title. Alan Liefting (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Messy, Category:Greenhouse emissions is a subcategory of Category:Greenhouse gases and Category:Greenhouse effect, and the latter also contains Category:Greenhouse gases. All greenhouse emissions are greenhouse gases at the moment, the improved title would make it clearer that something else is odd with these categories: If A is in B, and B is in C, then A should be not also in C. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agrre that it is a bit messy but we can have Category:Greenhouse gases and Category:Greenhouse gas emissions. Calling that category as "Greenhouse emissions" suggests that it is for emissions from greenhouses. Also, you say "If A is in B, and B is in C, then A should be not also in C" and while this is often the case it is not always the case. Alan Liefting (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I consider it as
SHOULD NOT, exceptions need a good excuse, but that's not obviously the case here—well, I don't see it. - Update, I just found that this is actually a policy with its own COM:OVERCAT shortcut and illustration, exceptions would need a very good and documented IAR excuse. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I consider it as
- I think a good solution is to have Category:Greenhouse emissions as a category redirect to Category:Greenhouse gas emissions. "Category:Greenhouse emissions" is a possible search string by users. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Consensus seems to have been reached in December 2014. Moved to Category:Greenhouse gas emissions. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
日本語で失礼します。Category:1995 Great Hanshin earthquakeを日本政府が公式に定めている英語名称の「Category:The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake」に変更することを提案します。公式英語名称ですが、こちらの英語館名などで確認出来ます。--Taisyo (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose 理由下記。
- 冒頭の The は不要。冗長。他のカテゴリ名（全世界の特定地震）では付けていない。他分野でもまれ。
- 他のカテゴリ名（全世界の特定地震）では earthquake としており、 Earthquake とはしていない。enwpでも同様。
- コモンズは正式名称絶対主義ではなく、他のカテゴリ名との整合や、全世界的なわかりやすさがより重視される命名傾向がある。正式名称が存在しなかったり議論があったりする事象・事物もここでは並行して扱っているという事情を考慮しなければならない。
- 「1995 Great Hanshin earthquake」というカテゴリ名はそうしたコモンズでの慣例に完全に沿っており、このままでも不備はない。
- まあでも淡路が入っていないという不満はわかるし、「1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake」にしたいというなら反対しません。「世界的知名度からすれば淡路はどうしても必須というほどではない」という消極的反対はあるかと思いますが。
- 参考までに、「Category:2011 Tōhoku earthquake」というカテゴリ名も正式名称 (Great East Japan Earthquake) から離れていますが、実態として普及した名称とコモンズでの命名慣例とを考慮した妥協の産物だったりします。当初は「2011 Sendai earthquake」というひどい名前でした（「Category:2011 Sendai earthquake damage」が2011-03-11 17:08 (UTC+9)に立てられたのが始まり。立てた人はフィンランド人と思われる）。改名時のCfDのログはCommons:Categories for discussion/2011/04/Category:2011 Sendai earthquake damageにあります。 --Vantey (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Category:1995 Kobe earthquake （英語典拠でかなり一般的な名称かつLCSHの標目名）
- Category:1995 Great Hanshin earthquake （英語版WPで長年異論なく受け入れられている名称 現状維持）
- Category:1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake or Category:1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake （阪神・淡路大震災の最も逐語的な訳かつLCSHのVariant）
- Earthquakeを大文字にするか小文字にするかは他のカテゴリでも表記ゆれが見られるので大きな問題ではないと思っています。ただし小文字の方が少し多いかも。--朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- コモンズの慣例として「年号を基本的に入れる件」了解しました。また、「the」がいらない件も了解しました。そうなるとCategory:1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake、またはCategory:1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquakeが相応しいのではと思います。実際の所、英語版やコモンズのルールを理解していない部分も有りますので、別の理由があるのであればの部分も実際はありました。「解りやすさ優先」の件も確認しました。ただ、日本語版の利用者の立場で考えたら「正式名称に淡路が入っているから、配慮して」もありますので、落とし所として問題なければと思います。それと東日本大震災の件。妥協の産物とはいえ、日本語版の利用者から考えたら「東日本」が入っているのが解りやすいように思います。主な利用者は英語圏ではなく、日本語圏（つまり日本国内）に思いますので。「東北」では解りにくいような気もしますが。--Taisyo (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Summary of discussion so far 現状まとめ The category in question has been proposed to be renamed to a more "proper" name. OP argues that the current name can be considered inappropriate because Awaji, the epicenter and the area that suffered substantial damage (but not as populated), is not included. Arguments criticizing the short form "Great Hanshin earthquake" can be found in ja:阪神・淡路大震災#名称 although it is written in Japanese. I think a lot of Japanese nationals would understand this point, and is also why the official name of the disaster is the "Great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake" rather than the current category name. I brought up the fact that in practice some English literature refers to it as "Kobe earthquake" or "Great Hanshin earthquake", but the "Great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake" can also be commonly seen, and Vantey who opposes the change has said not to say no if the alternative is that. Since all three people who have spoken on this matter have expressed that they will not oppose Category:1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake, I propose to move the category in due time if no further opposition is heard. The discussion can still be kept open for, say, a week or two? since the discussion so far has only been among Japanese speakers. Comments welcome. --朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensus reached in January 2015. Moving to Category:1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Can we move this to Category:Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew per the official name (Unesco). -- Deadstar (msg) 12:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- To me the official name is alway the better name, but Category:Kew Gardens should be replaced by a Disambiguation, to be shure, that people find the correct category. Kersti (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's the UNESCO name, to be sure, but the more common name is Kew Gardens (it's the name of the nearby rail and Tube stop, after all). But a disambiguator makes sense. Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Will I go ahead so? Thanks people. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@Deadstar: : Yes, I'd also support turning Category:Kew Gardens into a disambig page, and moving appropriate content to Category:Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Mighty Quill -So I finally moved the lot per above. There are a lot of subcats still called "Kew Gardens" though, but I don't think they'll pose too much confusion. Check & close please. Thanks -- Deadstar (msg) 11:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I missed your comment until now, Deadstar. Closing as resolved. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
empty cat - just acting as a duplicate of the [Japanese] hand saws cat Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- References
- Chesapeake Light Craft, LLC. "The World's Best Handsaw: Cut Faster & More Accurately with the Japanese Saw - Razor Sharp Cuts on the Pull Stroke". Retrieved 25 June 2012.
- Japanese saw at the Takenaka carpentry tools museum
- Japanese Hand Saw explanation and demonstration video by AskWoodMan
- So what's your point?
- Japanese hand saws have a long and distinct tradition. We already have another category for them.
- There is nothing special about Japanese power saws. There is thus no need or reason for Japanese power saws, or an overall container category (this one) of Japanese saws. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not interested Japan. Speedy delete please. Thank you. --Allforrous 15:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Japanese hand saws
Redundant to the much larger Category:Businesspeople by country and underused. Rudolph Buch (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
This category should really be merged into Category:Close-ups EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. This category is for the equipment and practice of taking close-up photographs. Category:Close-ups is for the result, the actual photographs. There are similar distinctions in Category:Black and white photography, Category:Flash photography and Category:Polaroid photography. There were some close-up photographs in this category, so I moved them to Category:Close-ups. I also moved some subcategories from Category:Close-ups to here. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well maybe just add a note at the top of Category:Close-up photography that it should only contain those photos. Should it be added in the main category close-ups or nah? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- A note would be fine. The "close-ups" category goes under "close-up photography", not the other way around. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- What about renaming Category:Close-ups to Category:Close-up photos or is that unnecessary... Probably not needed. I say leave it alone for now EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'd have no objection to that, if you think it would be clearer. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- What about renaming Category:Close-ups to Category:Close-up photos or is that unnecessary... Probably not needed. I say leave it alone for now EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- A note would be fine. The "close-ups" category goes under "close-up photography", not the other way around. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well maybe just add a note at the top of Category:Close-up photography that it should only contain those photos. Should it be added in the main category close-ups or nah? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@EoRdE6: Do you think we can close this with the following actions?
- Rename Category:Close-ups to Category:Close-up photographs
- Put a hatnote on Category:Close-ups saying that it is for the process of close-up photography, and that actual close-up photographs go in Category:Close-up photographs
--Auntof6 (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Wow okay I have no memory of any of this happening two years ago but looking at it that seems like a fair idea I believe... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like we have agreement, but there are a lot of moves here for all the sub-categories of Category:Close-ups. Ruthven, could you please make the necessary requests? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Weird category - particularly as it appears to have been filled with a random assortment of pictures of nuns in habits, folk dress, fashionable women in turban hats, etc, which are NOT remotely hijab-like. Not every picture of a woman wearing a headscarf or a turban is hijab-like.It actually seems potentially controversial, as if any woman covering her hair must automatically be presumed to be copying Muslims. Mabalu (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- For example - I've not removed any images from the category (apart from the one that first drew my attention to it, this one), so if you look - you can see nuns, nurses in uniform, a picture of Queen Victoria, etc - very random... Mabalu (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also a very strange categorization under "Islamophobia" and "Religionism"... What relationship can exist between the (once very widespread) habit of wearing kerchieves and these categories???--Phso2 (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I can see the use of a category showing non-Muslims wearing appropriate dress in order to fit in, but this is really not the way to populate it. If nobody has any objections I will start removing the inappropriate images in a few days time. Mabalu (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Having looked at the Wikipedia article on hijab, I can sort of see the thinking here - but the interpretation of hijab is so subjective that on one level, probably none of these images would count as hijab; but on another level, some might think that ALL these images count. (at least one person certainly did.) I also find it very problematic that someone thinks you can tell whether or not a person is or isn't a Muslim simply by looking at a picture - based on what reasoning? How is it possible to say that someone is dressed like a Muslim, yet obviously isn't Muslim? For example, yes, nuns obviously wouldn't be Muslim, but their habits aren't what people think of when it comes to hijab. Trying to push this point of view would be original research/subjective opinion. At the end of the day, only one image remains in the category that appears to properly reflect the focus of the title (although again we have the the question of whether or not the woman's outfit IS influenced by hijab, or simply a traditional form of dress carried through the ages that NOW looks like hijab to modern eyes.) Mabalu (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I can see the use of a category showing non-Muslims wearing appropriate dress in order to fit in, but this is really not the way to populate it. If nobody has any objections I will start removing the inappropriate images in a few days time. Mabalu (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Also a very strange categorization under "Islamophobia" and "Religionism"... What relationship can exist between the (once very widespread) habit of wearing kerchieves and these categories???--Phso2 (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and salt the earth - it's very weird and arbitrary to categorize non-Muslims by their Mulsimish appearance. Also White-looking Blacks? Tall-looking midgets? What else? Kevlar67 (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- This discussion is still open over a year later... and more and more images have been added. Still really sceptical about this category. Mabalu (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I just saw this discussion. You may see my opinions in Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/04/Category:Hijab like dressing of non-muslims. I will add another point, though. --E4024 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have no intentions to hurt the feelings of anybody. I myself feel very hurt when people on purpose or not say things that touch me. Having said that, I want to make use of this discussion to make a call to the cat-opener, User:Ashashyou: Ashashyou, brother (sister?) you must notice by now that many of the cats opened by you are either directly deleted or end up in discussion pages. See what happened with Category:Ottoman Veil only today; we had a Category:Yashmak several years before you opened that and therefore it was deleted. Another of your cats, Category:Ottoman Medical corps is in discussion as of today. If this happens so frequently, you should stop a moment, think about it and ask yourself if there is a problem with your cats or with all the people discussing them. I like you, because you work hard and contribute a lot. Thanks to you I found out many files that otherwise I could never have seen. (Follow Ashashyou. Joke. :) You are a mature person who never got angry at these discussions. (I sometimes bite the keyboard. :) I kindly request you once again to simply "look around" before opening cats. "Does a similar cat exist?", "How are the parallel cats formed?", "Can we tackle this in another way?" etc. Sorry to have talked about (better "to you" here) but you sometimes ignore my other talks. Please forgive me. Maybe I am a bad friend, but a friend (of all Commoners). --E4024 (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Absolutely no reason for this category to exist. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the difference between "Category:Games of mental skill" and "Category:Mind sports" really is. Should the latter be merged into the former? Or is there some way of renaming one or both categories so that their scopes are clearer? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Category:Games of mental skill" is a much broader category IMO, the 'Mind sports' only a special part of the first. While "Category:Mind sports" is very well separated by their sports structures (regular tournaments, price money, associations, manager, professionalism at the top layer) - as it's typical for mind sports like Chess, or japanese Go game. 'Mental skill' denotes everything that's not bodily skills but games based in abilities of abstraction and foresight. -- Justus Nussbaum (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- So "Mind sports" should be a subcategory of "Games of mental skill"? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Closing with Mind sports as a subcat per Jacklee. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I cannot read the image captions but I suspect that a better category name would be "Fukushima nuclear disaster in Taiwan" Alan Liefting (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Effects of Fukushima I accidents in Taiwan
Duplicate of Category:Sir Berkeley (locomotive) Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is already a precedent for this with ships – you can rename a ship as many times as you like, and each would have its own category, but every ship carries the same IMO number from construction to scrapping. (see Category:Ships by IMO number). Iain Bell (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Merge and re-split if and when the owner renames it. It's rare for named steam locos to be renamed, it's extremely rare for named locos to change an existing name. Whilst this is possible, it's not likely enough that we need to set up categories in advance on the off-chance. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Merging per Andy. Unlike ships, locomotives are rarely renamed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Isn't these Category:Food with black background or dark background? Josve05a (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would say yes. The few images in this category should be moved to Category:Food with black background and this category should be deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not connected to other US categories, it doesn't have a lot of child categories despite the wide Category name Vera (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- The entire hierarchy Category:Power generation, transportation and distribution is fairly poor: Few child categories, few images in the categories, and little connection to other categories. The entire hierarchy should be dissolved, and images recategorized into the more appropriate Category:Energy by type of energy by country. Each of the top-categories in that hierarchy (Bioenergy by country; Electric power by country; Fossil energy by country; Geothermal energy by country; Hydroelectric power by country; Nuclear power by country; etc.) have excellent generation child categories. Electric power distribution has Category:Power grid in the United States, although Category:Petroleum industry in the United States is missing and thus oil/natural gas trucks, oil/natural gas trains, oil/natural gas pipelines, oil/natural gas ships are all not categorized adequately. (Nor are heating oil, or oil-based electrical power generating plants.) Category:Coal mining in the United States is also missing a transportation and distribution child category(ies). - Tim1965 (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Previously deleted by Hedwig in Washington per this discussion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Rename to "Sustainable building" or suchlike. Ecology is a scientific study and is far removed from the contents of this category. Alan Liefting (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, please feel free to correct the category name accordingly. I'm certainly no expert in the field. Thanks for the notification. Kind Regards, Rept0n1x (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No opposition in years. Moved to Category:Sustainable buildings matching parent Category:Sustainable architecture. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Unsystematic category declaring to be a gallery. ŠJů (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently a dupe of Category:Tvrz_Popovice, (not only) therefore
No opposition in years. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
This Category resp Category:Black and white photography should be renamed to Black-and-white photographs resp photography (with hyphen, as we can see the name in EnWP). The description let also in English self a contention open⁉ The naming is also for not native English speaker distracting to Category:Black and white. ↔ User:Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 11:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also if Category:Black and white photography is the art of Black-and-white, Category:Black-and-white photographs can't a subcategory of this! ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 11:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning. I've reread "The description let also in English self a contention open⁉" several times, but I can't figure out what you mean. Could you reword it?– Quadell (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I mean this sentense (on the Cat page) “The use of this category in addition to topical sub-categories of Category: Black and white photography remains a subject of contention.” this can never be a solution for normal categorizing. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 13:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is a Category:Black and white art, with my assessment of en-3 I pass on the finer points of hyphenation apart from "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". –Be..anyone (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ok it seems to be trivial and it is mentioned under Commons:Rename a category (as "fixing spelling"). We are an international project and if the fundamental language is wrong everything goes more confusing and difficult. Here is some likelihood of confusion and we need also consistency. For example en:Grayscale is the supercategory, the synonym in German is “de:Schwarz-weiß”. It is important to be clear as possible in categorization. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 18:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- But I agree of the "solving this problem". There is a huge amount of affected Cats and Files and I'm also not sure if there is a distinct in UK-English and US-English. So the categorization is the main problem here. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 18:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Name conflict: as we can see [3] The Category:Black and white is to be intended to be the same as Black and white photographs can we somehow explain this⁇ I added only this short inconspicuous info.[4] ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 23:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- There exist black-and-white non-photographs. (Drawings, paintings, etc.) – Quadell (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Quadell Ok, there seems an interwiki conflict, because there is no concrete English article for black-and-white photographs⁉ Would you agree if I remove all interwiki links on Category:Black and white? There is also an conflict in the description of "as a tag, i.e. has no subcategories", so we remove all subcategories there or remove this sentence!? As I can now read on the talk page this Cat should be only a tag Category!? But there is no prominent information about this idea. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 14:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- There exist black-and-white non-photographs. (Drawings, paintings, etc.) – Quadell (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, Category:Black and white photography, is the genre, a kind of photography, I think, the problem is, the difference of the name of Category:Black and white photographs, is only one letter, high likelihood of confusion, but photographs is a part of photography. I think so subcategory and mother category is correct. --Jean11 (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Jean11, can you clarify this on the CAT description, so we can close this discu!? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 00:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Perhelion, native speaker of english move a black and white photographs in Category:Black and white photography also, instead of category:Black and white photographs. Maybe they use hotcat, do you understand? Ok, I have to think about the text. I write it here first, then you can write ok or not ok. Now I have to sleep. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Perhelion, I have add desriptions in a few languages. (If the topic de:Schwarzweißfotografie is equal to en:Monochrome photography etc. then the connections at Wikidata are wrong. See d:Q838368 and d:Q6901463). --Jean11 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- When are the same, we should maybe rename category:Black and white photography in Monochrome photography. --Jean11 (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Two years of discussion. Wow. And no result. I'd started cleaning up this category, beginning with creating some additional subcategories and removing overcategorization. IMO the use "as tag" as seen in the description is a wrong way. There are a lot of subcategories yet and a category of nearly 100.000 pictures is not useful. The description should be updated soon. (It was the first category I've found that should be used as tag. May be "JPEG" is one. Very incomprehensable.) --XRay talk 12:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- We have to mention the final proposal. ↔ User: Perhelion 15:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm (still) removing files from the category. The category is no longer used "as tag" (result of the proposal). But the category still exists. Now we can think about renaming to "Black-and-white photographs". IMO this CfD can be closed. --XRay talk 09:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Resolved: Category will not be used as flat-list per Category_talk:Black_and_white_photographs#Proposal. Description has been adjusted. Renaming doesn't seem to be a sensible solution at the moment before the clean-up. --MB-one (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion here Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/12/Category:Streets in Vienna on what the format for naming streets and squares is. My understanding is that Wikimedia Commons should follow the naming format of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (from the English Wikipedia), as is explained here Commons:Categories for discussion. This is not seen as so by a number of editors and has unfortunately led to a squabble, which is wasting time and energy. Since this is an issue that is of concern to every user, I would like to hear from the broader forum their thoughts so that there can be some clarity. Thank you for your input. --Gryffindor (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, do we need to have a convnention? Different Wikipedias have different standards, they are difficult to enforce here since many users just do not read Commons' policied, and there will be a lot of burden on us to rename cats (and also a lot of disruption since they are linked from the projects).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently, we do need a convention, since several users are currently edit-warring and accusing each other. --UV (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- My experience with categorising Streets in London is that reality resists a consistent structure. A well known street like Regent Street Has it's own Wikipedia entry and probably does not need to use the format Streetname, City but many streets will need to use that format to avoid being confused with other streets in the UK or elsewhere, then there are street names of which there are more then one in London, so I use the format Streetname, Borough, unless there are more then one of that street name in a Borough then I use format Streetname, Postcode. Then to make things more complex there are streets which run through more then one borough or postcode. I just hope that whatever format is ultimately chosen there remains some flexibility for awkward cases Oxyman (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I won´t oppose any "preferred format" as a guidance but I can´t see the need for a hard rule that would lead to category redirects or recategorization: If a consistent naming system is already put in place in a certain town or region, it shouldn´t be changed just for the rules´ sake. And if someone takes the effort upon him to categorize the streets in a town that has no such categories yet, I rather would give him the right to choose which system he deems most appropriate. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- My experience with categorising Streets in London is that reality resists a consistent structure. A well known street like Regent Street Has it's own Wikipedia entry and probably does not need to use the format Streetname, City but many streets will need to use that format to avoid being confused with other streets in the UK or elsewhere, then there are street names of which there are more then one in London, so I use the format Streetname, Borough, unless there are more then one of that street name in a Borough then I use format Streetname, Postcode. Then to make things more complex there are streets which run through more then one borough or postcode. I just hope that whatever format is ultimately chosen there remains some flexibility for awkward cases Oxyman (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently, we do need a convention, since several users are currently edit-warring and accusing each other. --UV (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
As I can see, the main matter of the linked Vienna discussion is whether the disambiguation should be used only if needed or for all names even if is not needed. Generally, we should keep the common rule that disambiguation is used only for disambiguation. But if some local community of users achieve a consensus that for their city or country is difficult to check whether the name is unique or isn't, they can use the disambiguation also for unclear cases, its nothing wrong. However, all better online maps have autocomplete function which offer synonymic places (thus, they allow to check very simply whether the name is unique).
Is there some other hot problem with the format? Is there any controversy between original (local) / translated names or something similar? In my view, churches or train stations have bigger problems. As regards the duel between coma convention and bracket convention, its really perpetual and we should not prick the vespiary if not needed. --ŠJů (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Closed and kept. Use of this parent category in English seems accepted by default. (Local categories may be named as seems most useful to contributors to such categories, but that is not an issue for this discussion.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
This category should be merged into its parent Category:Close-ups as Category close-ups is the category for macro photos and they should be sorted through that. --EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- 125 files, and I hate scripts, therefore make it so. But keep a redirect, otherwise folks will invent it again (in German Nahaufnahme and Makro aren't identical, it's not even the same object lens.) –Be..anyone (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe, but it seems to me you can get close-ups in ways other than using a macro lens, such as through a telephoto lens, or just by putting a regular lens close to a subject. I think this one should stay. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- See Category talk:Macro photographs for additional comments from Frank C. Müller. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Closed without merging; seems useful cat in active use; no recent discussion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The Category:Streets in Vienna that are unambiguous seem to recently have been added with the city name. See as format for example Category:Broadway or Red Square. I have been creating these categories for at least half a decade now, however I do not see any kind of discussion about why the city name now needs to be added to uniquely named streets. I have restored a number of street categories after careful research that they a) are uniquely named or b) have the most number of hits that they warrant to be without city name, but have found these restored names to be reverted again. Since I do not want to start an edit dispute, I am creating a discussion here. Thank you. --Gryffindor (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- This category is eight years old, so that's not the problem. A Brücke über die Zeile isn't the Broadway, that's a strawman. Looking at your contributions, there are lots of "Category:Irgendwas Platz, Vienna" redirected to "Category:Irgendwas Platz", the latter ending up as subcategory of Streets in Vienna. Some in a messy state, redirected categories must be empty, i.e., your bulk revert action is incomplete.
- Maybe you got the direction of those redirects wrong, I fear it doesn't scale for random street names in random cities. Just because you haven't found collisions now doesn't mean they won't happen forever. You could ignore theoretical future collisions and stick to your style, but then those redirected categories should be (1) empty, and (2) deleted, because they make no sense when empty. But for that it would be interesting to know what the common style on commons actually is. All these "Irgendwas Platz, Vienna" categories for something only existing in Vienna and already belonging to Category:Streets in Vienna are slightly odd. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- The overarching category "Streets of Vienna" is not the issue, it's the naming format of the subcategories. Shall I post the cfd somewhere else? The issue is that the format has been existing as "Streetname", and only if there is a disambiguation clash is the city name added. What I don't understand is why all these subcategories have been unilaterally moved by User:Gugerell without any prior discussion discernible. Therefore I am restoring the original name of some of these categories until the user explains what the rationale is. I have not restored all of them (yet) because the moving has been quite substantial. I have been closely involved with creating and maintaining many of these categories, and that Gugerell chose not to contact me prior is unfortunate. But I am not the one who started this mess. Gryffindor (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yes, you produced a mess. All street categories in Vienna do have the format Streetname, Vienna. You now did mass edits without any discussion. You produced duplicate category pages that are useless. Furthermore, your redirects are not working properly. I call this vandalism. --Gugerell (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- You certainly found an interesting topic, maybe it should be discussed more generally not limited to the (in a strict sense also ambiguous) Vienna. So far I identified one unhelpful historical COM:Naming categories and created a new COM:REDCAT shortcut. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yes, you produced a mess. All street categories in Vienna do have the format Streetname, Vienna. You now did mass edits without any discussion. You produced duplicate category pages that are useless. Furthermore, your redirects are not working properly. I call this vandalism. --Gugerell (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- The overarching category "Streets of Vienna" is not the issue, it's the naming format of the subcategories. Shall I post the cfd somewhere else? The issue is that the format has been existing as "Streetname", and only if there is a disambiguation clash is the city name added. What I don't understand is why all these subcategories have been unilaterally moved by User:Gugerell without any prior discussion discernible. Therefore I am restoring the original name of some of these categories until the user explains what the rationale is. I have not restored all of them (yet) because the moving has been quite substantial. I have been closely involved with creating and maintaining many of these categories, and that Gugerell chose not to contact me prior is unfortunate. But I am not the one who started this mess. Gryffindor (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Add disambiguation only where there is need to disambiguate. No other place in the world apart from Vienna, Austria has a street named Schottenbastei; no other place in the world apart from Vienna, Austria has a street named Dr.-Karl-Renner-Ring. There is no need to add disambiguing information to the category name in these cases. Although there may be more than one person whose name is Bill Clinton, the article is at Bill Clinton and not at the title that would hopefully prevent future disambiguation clashes Bill Clinton (42nd president of the United States of America). In the very unlikely case that a different city will some day duplicate these street names, we can then move the categories. The fact that some street names need disambiguation does not justify disambiguing information to be added to all street names, including the large number of unambiguous street names.
- Vienna is not unambiguous in itself. There are at least twenty different places named Vienna in the world, see en:Vienna (disambiguation). Thus, even if it would be decided that all category titles should be chosen as to prevent any possible future disambiguation clash, it would be necessary not just to include Vienna, but also to include Austria in the category title as well.
- For these reasons, , Vienna should be removed from street category names unless actually needed with respect to the street name at hand. --UV (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- The suffix Vienna is not simply a disambiguation, it's a meaningful and orderly system. A category Fichtegasse can be anywhere in the world, but Fichtegasse, Vienna is an exact and unique denomination. Furthermore, the Viennese system is systematical and orderly. If someone would like to change the suffix from , Vienna to (Vienna) he could do this by using a bot. Using suffixes in some categories and no suffixes in others is chaotic. It prevents automated processing. So, using suffixes it is not a matter of disambiguation, it's a concise system. Many other cities use it, like e.g. the Category:Streets in Dresden. --Gugerell (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I repeat that "Vienna" is not unique in itself.
- Regarding your argument about "chaotic" vs. "meaningful, orderly, exact, unique, systematical, concise": Please take a look at Category:Popes. Of the currently about 264 subcategories about individual popes, two have a name that ends in " (pope)" while the remaining ones (about 262 subcategories) do not have a suffix. Your argument would necessitate to add the suffix " (pope)" to all the remaining ~262 categories in the interest of being meaningful, orderly, exact, unique, systematical, and concise. The current pope subcategory names would, according to your argument, prevent automated processing. I doubt the validity of that line of argument.
- What kind of automated processing exactly is possible with the suffix ", Vienna" but impossible when this suffix is present only when necessary? Remember that not every category whose name ends in ", Vienna" covers a street – category names ending in ", Vienna" may also cover a building, a company, etc. Semantics can be added easily on Wikidata (e. g. "instance of" -> "Street in Vienna, Austria"). --UV (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding popes: Many popes share the same name; therefore they are numbered, making them unique. The picture is completely different when it comes to streets. There are 7.000 streets in Vienna, and hundredthousands of streets in german speaking Europe. Given this huge number of items it makes sense to bring some order into the system. And the policy says: Categorization structure should be as systematical and unified as possible ... This is what we do in Vienna and other places. The suffix Austria is IMHO never necessary. There are places called „Vienna“ in the USA, but none of them end with „-straße“ or „-gasse“. Therefore a category like Fichtegasse, Vienna is unique. Fichtegasse without the suffix is not; this name exists in Erlangen, Weiz, Marburg and other places. --Gugerell (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- If I see that a picture is categorised in Category:Lindengasse, Vienna, I know that it's a picture of a town called Vienna in a German speaking country - and the capital of Austria is the only place fulfilling those criteria. The category thus helps me to place where the picture was taken without being forced to follow the category tree or analysing the hopefully existing coordinates. By the way, as most bigger 'Old world cities', Dresden isn't unique, too - but the same rules apply. And as far as I know, in cases where there's one much bigger town and several smaller settlements of the same name, the bigger town doesn't have to specify which one it is (Category:Vienna and Category:Dresden don't lead to disambiguation categories).
- As street names in itself (especially of smaller streets) are only helpful for people very well acquainted with that area of a town, I think that adding the associated town help a lot - all the more as post addresses hopefully prevent a town having two streets with the same name. If there are in fact two streets with the same name in two towns with the same name, we'll have to think of something... ;->
- Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- User:UV has a clear understanding of the policy. There is no need to disambiguate if the street or square does not exist somewhere else in this world, and even then it's disputable based on how well known it is. See Category:Broadway or Category:Times Square for example. A place in Vienna such as Category:Ballhausplatz both in the English Wikipedia en:Ballhausplatz and the German Wikipedia de:Ballhausplatz follows that format. Do not try to fix something if it's not broken. There is no need to invent a new format that is misleading. Gugerell, I see that you have reverted my edits on restoring the original name of the categories that I have created and maintained, after I have invited you to participate in this discussion. This is not in order. Please desist and participate in this discussion first before moving things, something that you should have done since the beginning. Gryffindor (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- We have a clear and concise system of categorization of streets in Vienna. What is the reason to change it? --Gugerell (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- User:UV has a clear understanding of the policy. There is no need to disambiguate if the street or square does not exist somewhere else in this world, and even then it's disputable based on how well known it is. See Category:Broadway or Category:Times Square for example. A place in Vienna such as Category:Ballhausplatz both in the English Wikipedia en:Ballhausplatz and the German Wikipedia de:Ballhausplatz follows that format. Do not try to fix something if it's not broken. There is no need to invent a new format that is misleading. Gugerell, I see that you have reverted my edits on restoring the original name of the categories that I have created and maintained, after I have invited you to participate in this discussion. This is not in order. Please desist and participate in this discussion first before moving things, something that you should have done since the beginning. Gryffindor (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding popes: Many popes share the same name; therefore they are numbered, making them unique. The picture is completely different when it comes to streets. There are 7.000 streets in Vienna, and hundredthousands of streets in german speaking Europe. Given this huge number of items it makes sense to bring some order into the system. And the policy says: Categorization structure should be as systematical and unified as possible ... This is what we do in Vienna and other places. The suffix Austria is IMHO never necessary. There are places called „Vienna“ in the USA, but none of them end with „-straße“ or „-gasse“. Therefore a category like Fichtegasse, Vienna is unique. Fichtegasse without the suffix is not; this name exists in Erlangen, Weiz, Marburg and other places. --Gugerell (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- The suffix Vienna is not simply a disambiguation, it's a meaningful and orderly system. A category Fichtegasse can be anywhere in the world, but Fichtegasse, Vienna is an exact and unique denomination. Furthermore, the Viennese system is systematical and orderly. If someone would like to change the suffix from , Vienna to (Vienna) he could do this by using a bot. Using suffixes in some categories and no suffixes in others is chaotic. It prevents automated processing. So, using suffixes it is not a matter of disambiguation, it's a concise system. Many other cities use it, like e.g. the Category:Streets in Dresden. --Gugerell (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Quick reality check:
- UV (talk · contribs) claims that no other city has a street named Dr.-Karl-Renner-Ring. That is, of course, not true, as there is such a street in Groß-Enzersdorf, Lower Austria.
- Gryffindor (talk · contribs) claims that the name Ballhausplatz is unique. That is also not true. Prutz, Tyrol has a square with that name.
- Wikipedias may well not use any disambiguation for these names, as the other streets I mentioned are probably not notable, but on Commons we strive to eventually document all streets of the world, and have categories for them, even if we don't have them now. That argument simply doesn't apply to Commons.
- Even when the name really is unique, I do not necessarily know that when I categorize. I've categorized many photos of Vienna in the past, and I did that by putting the start of the street name into HotCat. If there were no results, I'd put the photo into "streets in $district" instead. If there was a result with ", Vienna", then hooray, I'd have found a good place to put it. If there was a result with that street name, but without a city name, then I'd have to open that category and check if it's really the street in Vienna or a street somewhere else. Thus, even if the consensus is not to add ", Vienna" (to which ones? Hopefully not to Ballhausplatz or Dr.-Karl-Renner-Ring, there is no way anyone could argue these shouldn't need disambiguation.), then I'd ask that the forms with ", Vienna" stay as category redirects to make categorizers' lives easier.
- At this point, I want to thank Gugerell for his work in creating a meaningful category structure! darkweasel94 18:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- +1. As someone who has done thousands of edits concerning categories in Vienna I’d like to thank Gugerell for his systematic approach which is very useful. I strongly recommend to keep the “..., Vienna“ structure for our street and place names. Thank you --Funke (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Gryffindor: You are talking about disambiguation. You removed the suffix from Maria-Theresien-Straße, Vienna despite the fact, that there is a street off this name in Innsbruck. You removed the suffix from Bäckerstraße, Vienna; there are streets of this name in Düsseldorf, Donauwörth, Görlitz and Werl. And so on. You are moving categories at random. What ist the reason for doing so? --Gugerell (talk)
- Furthermore: You wrote: There is no need to invent a new format that is misleading. You are wrong, we didn't invent the system, it is already in use in many places (e.g. Dresden). And why is it misleading? --Gugerell (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Darkweasel94. I ran into this kind of issue a while back with Category:Hyde Park. That category used to be for the best known of the Hyde Parks (the one in London), but it kept accumulating media for the others as well because people and/or automated categorizers didn't know any better. They'd see that a file was for something called Hyde Park, then they'd see the unqualified Hyde Park category and figure that's where the file belonged. For Hyde Park, this was fixed by creating a qualified category for the London park and making the unqualified one a dab page. Commons is not like Wikipedia: if someone arrives at an unqualified "Hyde Park", for example, on Wikipedia, they could tell by reading the article which one it was. That's not always possible with files -- if there's nothing helpful in the description (as is often the case), it can be difficult or impossible to tell from looking at an image. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia and the German Wikipedia only has the format "Ballhausplatz", as I have stated before. Even if there is a small town with the same name, the most commonly known place applies, see the format "Times Square" and "Broadway", which is not listed as "Times Square (New York City)" or "Broadway, New York". By adding the city name to a street or square that is unique, you are creating potential confusion that it might exist somewhere else, when in reality it doesn't. That is why Wikipedia does not add city names to unique streets and squares. Even when there is another one with the same name, oftentimes the most commonly known one takes precedence. About the concerns that you might not know where this particular street or square is, just follow the base category under which it is listed. I have created and maintained many of these streets and squares in this category, and you have not contacted me beforehand or discussed this, which you should have. I completely disagree with creating this unnecessary confusing format. Gryffindor (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Could we try to decide objectively if it makes sense to keep the city name in the street names or not? And perhaps not only for Vienna, but in general - should the discussion be moved somewhere else? I'd suggest a list with advantages and disadvantages with - if necessary - short comments. I'll try to formulate a few of the pros and cons I've read here so far. Please add to that - I fear the lists I can create will be a bit too heavy on the pros... ;-> --Anna reg (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict)
- Even if there is a small town with the same name, the most commonly known place applies, see the format "Times Square" and "Broadway", which is not listed as "Times Square (New York City)" or "Broadway, New York". Wikipedia article names simply have different use cases than Commons category names. An important feature of good Commons category names is that someone who fires up HotCat should be able to figure out only from the category name if this is the right category, or if the page being categorized needs to go somewhere else. Wikipedia article names are primarily there as a search target, which is why en:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC makes sense on Wikipedia, but much less on Commons.
- you are creating potential confusion that it might exist somewhere else, when in reality it doesn't. That may be so. And then? What harm comes from that, to anyone at all? I cannot think of one scenario where someone finds it more difficult to use or contribute to Commons in any form because category names also contain the city.
- About the concerns that you might not know where this particular street or square is, just follow the base category under which it is listed. That's a much more time-consuming workflow than simply typing out the street name. Especially as it always requires you to switch to multiple-change mode in HotCat.
- I have created and maintained many of these streets and squares in this category – COM:OWN. Gugerell has been working on this format for more than two years, and no one has complained so far. I believe that by now, this is sufficiently established that the burden of consensus-seeking is now on those who disagree with Gugerell's format.
- darkweasel94 20:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hereby formally
Pro ", City name"
[edit]- location easier to grasp
- exact and unique denominations
- difficult to know in advance if there's another street with the same name (and highly probable that there is)
- no/less disambiguation problems
- no check for category content necessary
→ makes categorizers' & uploaders' lives easier
Contra ", City name"
[edit]- disambiguation only where there is need
- shorter
- Unnatural to use English city name together with German street name for cities in German-speaking countries
- In addition to darkweasels remarks I would like to remind Gryffindor, that most of the large cities in german speaking Europe use suffixes as a rule, either as Streetname, City or as Streetname (City). Examples are Berlin, Munich, Cologne, Stuttgart, Düsseldorf, Leipzig, Dresden, Hannover, Nuremberg, Duisburg, Bielefeld, Münster, Karlsruhe, Wiesbaden and Zürich, to name just the largest. --Gugerell (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I concur with User:Anna reg. It is unfortunate that long-term contributors have to end up squabbling with each other, simply because Wikimedia Commons does not have proper rules established regarding this topic, like in the other Wikipedias. This is leading to unnecessary waste of time and energy. Since this a topic that concerns every user and not just those that happen to be more active in a certain geographic area, I agree with Anna reg that the pros and cons should be discussed in a broader forum. Please continue here Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/12/Category:Streets by country. Gryffindor (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Gryffindor, your method of discussion is a little bit problematic. Instead of discussing, you are shifting the discussion from one page to the next. I've asked you, why so many cities use the format Streetname, City or Streetname (City), but Vienna should not do so. No answer. I've asked you why you are removing suffixes from streets that need disambiguation. No answer. I've asked you, why using suffixes is „misleading“. No answer. Now I'm asking: In Vienna we have the format Streetname, Vienna; if we would simply leave it that way, why would that be a „waste of time and energy“? --Gugerell (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- The new place for the discussion is yet another innocent category not directly affected by this
foovs.foo, barvs.foo (bar)issue for streets and places. The pointer on COM:VPP to attract (hopefully) more contributors was a good move. - Maybe commons has no "proper rules" for this case, because there is no single "correct" solution. I dislike the
foo, barstyle, and in doubt I'd preferfoo (bar), but admittedly there is no technical difference as far as MediaWiki (the software) is concerned. Sometimes one mixed categoryfoo+bar(and variations) is okay, but two categoriesfoo+barcan be also good or better, if the categories are otherwise unrelated. If you (both) insist on one correct solution somebody will lose, do you really want this? –Be..anyone (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- The new place for the discussion is yet another innocent category not directly affected by this
- Gryffindor, if you are moving the discussion to another place, half-way through, it would at least be helpful if you copied the contents of the discussion so far at the same time. It is not helpful to users coming to that discussion to find nothing about the history of the discussion, and is likely to mean that the same arguments get repeated. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Skinsmoke, the new discussion page has a link that leads to this older discussion here. So let us all discuss to find a consensus, otherwise the issue will just keep repeating itself. Gryffindor (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Gryffindor, if you are moving the discussion to another place, half-way through, it would at least be helpful if you copied the contents of the discussion so far at the same time. It is not helpful to users coming to that discussion to find nothing about the history of the discussion, and is likely to mean that the same arguments get repeated. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@Skinsmoke, Gryffindor, Be..anyone, Gugerell, FDMS4, Darkweasel94, Auntof6, Anna reg, and Funke: Closed (no consensus; subsumed into Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/12/Category:Streets by country) Josh (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Rename to 7ft gauge railways, or similar. This gauge was famously, and only, used by Brunel in Britain. WP:COMMONNAME would clearly support the use of the Imperial unit here, not metric. It was only named as metric because of another obsessive Tobias Conradi sock. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't make categories easier to understand if we mix metric and imperial. I'm sure it is better to show both in the category name and had already done a few (see Category:Track gauge by size) when I came over this. It doesn't really help that obviously two definitions exist, being 6 mm apart. My propositions for category names are:
- Category:2140 mm or 7 ft 1⁄4 in track gauge
- Category:2140 mm or 7 ft 1⁄4 in ex-7 in track gauge
- or even Category:2140 mm ex-2134 mm or 7 ft 1⁄4 in ex-7 ft track gauge
- or perhaps Category:2140 mm or 7 ft 1⁄4 in ex-2134 mm or 7 ft track gauge
--Gürbetaler (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Find a source for "2140mm gauge railways" in metric units. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Closed, category is a redirect to common historic name; seems satisfactorily resolved. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
How exactly does this differ from Category:Interior of the Statue of Liberty? Jmabel ! talk 06:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well not all interior views of the Statue of Liberty show the "internal structure" of it ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose. But what is and is not "structure"? Is an elevator part of the structure? How about a staircase? And how are you going to keep this category maintained, especially with no description on the category explaining what it includes and what it excludes? - Jmabel ! talk 16:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- IMO an elevator is not part of the structure since the statue stays if you remove the elevator ! In fact I suppose the category about the internal structure should only contain large views like File:Statue of Liberty Skeleton.png (therefore drawings and plans about how it is made) and photographs that mainly shows the metallic structure like File:Statue of Liberty interior.jpg. But the question may be more complicated with files like File:Statue of liberty crown.jpg... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose. But what is and is not "structure"? Is an elevator part of the structure? How about a staircase? And how are you going to keep this category maintained, especially with no description on the category explaining what it includes and what it excludes? - Jmabel ! talk 16:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 | Category:Internal structure of the Statue of Liberty | Move to/Rename as | Category:Structural systems of the Statue of Liberty | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | @Jmabel and TwoWings: Main parent category of the topic is Category:Structural systems (in structural engineering, the load-resisting sub-system of a structure) | |||
 | Josh (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
Sounds reasonable. - Jmabel ! talk 22:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Why plural? Category:Structural system of the Statue of Liberty. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
As suggested, Category:Internal structure of the Statue of Liberty has been moved to Category:Structural system of the Statue of Liberty and a brief description has been added. GFJ (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
This seems like a good idea but there are no other categories of the form "Country by media type". Alan Liefting (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- IBTD, it's a bad idea. Files typically have already some "by country" category, and also some "what is it, anyway" category, adding "what is it, anyway, by country" is just wrong. The "photographs of Ukraine", what does this mean, "taken in the Ukraine", "taken by Ukrainian photographers", something else? What next, "what is it, anyway, by country, year, and camera"? –Be..anyone (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yep. good points. Lets delete it. Alan Liefting (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is unlikely to be any new media types created in the near future so there is no prospect of expansion. The five member categories should be in Category:Ukraine as what happens in all of the by country categories. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- keep This kind of makes sense in that finding the various media file types of Ukraine can be useful tool, especially when the subject matter isnt as import at the media type rather than trawling through various categories in the hope of finding a video, we do have higher level categories for file types so a country subcat fits, the photo category has a number of subcats addressing Ne..anyones issue of what does it mean. Gnangarra 02:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Alan Liefting and Be..anyone: I don't necessarily disagree with you that this category was a bad idea, but it's no longer so lonely, as Category:Media types by country is quite full. Do you want to nominate all of those for deletion as well, or should I just close discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
| Category:Files from Ukraine by media type | Merge into | Category:Ukraine by media type | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| @Themightyquill, Alan Liefting, and Be..anyone: This is to match other cats of Category:Media types by country. We should no delete this category alone from that group, as there is no reason to delete Ukraine but keep the others. If we should delete all such categories, that should be raised at the higher level and all affected categories should be tagged as the impact will be much wider. | |||
| Josh (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
- Support - This would result in uniformity and make the category's purpose unambiguous. Lambtron (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
There are usefull categories specified by year like Category:Barack Obama by year but a military uniform by year doesn't seem usefull for me. Avron (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's quite useful for military history purposes, to see which uniforms were used in which time periods. It also helps keeps a single category from being overflooded with thousands of files (thus becoming useless in the process). Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 22:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- To learn which uniforms were used in which time periods someone should read the corresponding wikipedia article. Just because it is useful to know in which period a uniform type has been used (in the sense of Category:Establishments by year and Category:Disestablishments by year) it is not useful to having "by year of photograph" categories. This "by year of photograph" categories may also lead also to the contrary of "which uniforms were used in which time periods" becasue they will also geather private use or expositions in museums. To see what I mean: M1943 Field Jacket photo from 2008, M1941 Field Jacket from a reenacrion in 2007, M1941 Field Jacket shown in 2005 or M1965 field jacket worn by an actor in 2007
- Last but not least, just because there are many images in a category it is not a good idea of desperately creating additional categories. When looking for a uniform, the most people are interested how it looks like but not in which year exactly the photo has been taken.--Avron (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 | Category:Desert Camouflage Uniform by year | Keep | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:Desert Camouflage Uniform in 2002 | Keep | ||
| @Illegitimate Barrister and Avron: It is not the purpose of Commons categories to record the service record of equipment, such as when it was used. One should not look to the categories something is under to tell you when it was in use because this will always be inherently inaccurate and incomplete information. Seeing that it has a category 'in 1979' and 'in 1980' and 'in 2017' tells you nothing authoritative. It does not mean that it was not in service in 1978, and likewise doesn't mean it was in service in 2017 (a picture from a museum trip perhaps). That said, there is a value to being able to find media depicting an item over the course of its history. If one wants to illustrate its history over time, having files sorted by time period (year/decade/century) is perfectly valid and useful. So while Category:Desert Camouflage Uniform should not be under Category:Military uniforms in 2002 because that really is not valuable, Category:Desert Camouflage Uniform in 2002 is valuable and should be kept (presuming the files exist to support it). | |||
| Josh (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
Rename to Historical computer peripherals. Alan Liefting (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Historic computer peripherals" would be even better. AnonMoos (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- What is this category supposed to contain? Peripherals of computers of historic importance or peripherals that have historic importance themselves? Then historic would be better. Obsolete peripherals or such that are simply old? Then historical would be better, at least according to Wiktionary. Even if this is decided, the category isn't well-defined: who decides at which point Category:Floppy disk drives mutate from peripherals to historical peripherals, for example? The description at Category:Historical computers says Computers from before 2000 are considered as historical, but that's both arbitrary and not actually observed. I'd upmerge to Category:Computer peripherals and be done with it. --rimshottalk 14:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support: "Historical computer peripherals." The computer world moves so fast that recording its history is problematic. It is amazing how fast stuff that was once commonplace completely disappears, making open licensed photos hard to find or create. Historical categories are useful for separating out the older stuff from very broad categories like Category:Computer peripherals. "Historic" implies to me some special significance, while an "historical" category could be for anything old and notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I would define "historical" for computers as stuff that has not been in general used for a decade or more. But we don't need a sharp dividing line. If Category:Floppy disk drives gets put in Historical computer peripherals a few years too soon, so what? The category system is intended as an aid to finding things, not commentary.--agr (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Alan Liefting, AnonMoos, Rimshot, and ArnoldReinhold: Peripherals to match Category:Computer peripherals is obvious, but what about a move to Category:20th-century computer peripherals ? That's less ambiguous/arbitrary, and certainly covers anything that would be considered "historical." - Themightyquill (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- The 20th-century as a marker is too rigid. The dividing line should be able to move. We are already almost 1/5th through with the 21st century. Categorization is one area where we generally trust our editors' good judgement and I don't see why we can't do that here, perhaps with some broad guidelines.--agr (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- @ArnoldReinhold: I'm not sure what you mean by "too rigid" - it would give precise information about when these parts were produced. If we need to create Category:2000s computer peripherals and Category:2010s computer peripherals as time passes, we could do that as well. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Twentieth century does not capture what I mean by historical, which is stuff that was once in use but is no longer relevant to computing (except perhaps for archivists): punched card I/O devices, or 7/9-track magnetic tape for example. If you are dating things by when they were introduced, keyboards and hard disks are twentieth century but are very much in use today. I'm a little hard pressed to think of a peripheral that is clearly 21st century by intro date, VR glasses, maybe. If you are dating by when stuff stopped being in use, that is harder to pin down exactly. But more importantly, I think that notion needs a sliding window. Floppy drives are pretty much historical at this point, but were still used in 2001. CRTs likely will likely be historical in 10 years, maybe less. We already have YYYY introductions categories, where we can group peripherals by start date. Again I think editors can interpret historical well enough, perhaps with some simple guidelines.--agr (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think that editors will always have different opinions of what is historical, and simple guidelines will not be enough to prevent that. E.g., does the existence of punched card voting in the US mean that US voting systems are antiquated, or are punched cards maybe not so historical after all? I still think that this category is ill-defined and does not serve a useful purpose. If I want to find images of punched card machines or floppy drives, I will use their respective categories. If I want to find peripherals from a specific era, I will use the by-decade categories. --rimshottalk 20:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Twentieth century does not capture what I mean by historical, which is stuff that was once in use but is no longer relevant to computing (except perhaps for archivists): punched card I/O devices, or 7/9-track magnetic tape for example. If you are dating things by when they were introduced, keyboards and hard disks are twentieth century but are very much in use today. I'm a little hard pressed to think of a peripheral that is clearly 21st century by intro date, VR glasses, maybe. If you are dating by when stuff stopped being in use, that is harder to pin down exactly. But more importantly, I think that notion needs a sliding window. Floppy drives are pretty much historical at this point, but were still used in 2001. CRTs likely will likely be historical in 10 years, maybe less. We already have YYYY introductions categories, where we can group peripherals by start date. Again I think editors can interpret historical well enough, perhaps with some simple guidelines.--agr (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
| Category:Historical computer peripherals | Merge into | Category:Computer peripherals | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Category:Computer peripherals in the 20th century | Create | ||
| Category:Computer peripherals in the 21st century | Create | ||
| Category:20th century computer peripherals | Create | ||
| Category:21st century computer peripherals | Create | ||
| @Alan Liefting, AnonMoos, Rimshot, ArnoldReinhold, and Themightyquill: : 'Historical' is a horrible way to categorize files. It started as kind of a place for files that users did't have better definition for, but has of course grown well beyond that. Files on topics that are relevant to a certain period should be categorized by period (mainly by year/decade/century). Start with "Category:Computer peripherals in the 20th century" and "Category:Computer peripherals in the 21st century" and add subs as warranted. | |||
| Josh (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
- Seperate note, I presume there is no objection to renaming "periphery" to "peripherals" regardless of the discussion re:'historical'. Josh (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again, I don't think the year 2000 is a useful marker. Indeed, I would argue that almost all of what we call computer peripherals are 20th century items. Laser printers, scanners, wireless keyboards, mice, video game controllers, 3D printers were all 20th century inventions. Even Bluetooth headsets were introduced in 1999. In the 21st century, the industry has largely shifted away from the peripherals concept. New devices, like cell phones, tablets, smart watches, the internet of things, all are computers in the own right and connect to multiple other computers via peer-to-peer networks. On the other hand, punch card voting was notoriously used in the 2000 U.S. presidential election and paper tape was still used in numerical control applications this century. I'd like to see examples where applying the term "historical" is problematic in practice. But I fully agree with changing "periphery" to "peripherals."--agr (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- @ArnoldReinhold: The whole point is that 2000 is not a specific marker. Further subs by decade and by year (as there are files to support) alleviate any need for subjective temporal assignment. All uses of 'historical' as a general term are problematic, as they are inherently dependent on a subjective point of view. My proposal does not present "20th century" as a proxy for "historical", for as you mentioned, it is not a good one. Josh (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- In principle, this is what I would have suggested. I'd prefer "20th century peripherals" to "Computer peripherals in the 20th century", however, because I think the year of production is more important than the year when the picture was taken. For the 20th century, there are probably enough images to fill by-decade categories. I think these categories should only contain specific models, not greater categories of technology. For example, Category:CRT monitors does not need a time-based category, the parent Category:Monitors should be quite enough. Stuff like Category:HP Pavilion v72 or File:ASR-7 PPI CRT Display Front View.jpg could be put into the according by-decade category. --rimshottalk 21:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Rimshot: Absolutely. I didn't list the decade or year level categories that would be created as sufficient files are identified to warrant their creation. I do think you are right, there is a difference between categorizing a piece of equipment by year of introduction or production and the year of depiction. Both are independently useful for their own reasons. I have updated the proposal to reflect this, but am going with "x century computer peripherals" vs. "x century peripherals" for consistency with the main category Category:Computer peripherals (if 'computer peripherals' can reasonably be called just 'peripherals', that is a topic for the main category). Josh (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again, I don't think the year 2000 is a useful marker. Indeed, I would argue that almost all of what we call computer peripherals are 20th century items. Laser printers, scanners, wireless keyboards, mice, video game controllers, 3D printers were all 20th century inventions. Even Bluetooth headsets were introduced in 1999. In the 21st century, the industry has largely shifted away from the peripherals concept. New devices, like cell phones, tablets, smart watches, the internet of things, all are computers in the own right and connect to multiple other computers via peer-to-peer networks. On the other hand, punch card voting was notoriously used in the 2000 U.S. presidential election and paper tape was still used in numerical control applications this century. I'd like to see examples where applying the term "historical" is problematic in practice. But I fully agree with changing "periphery" to "peripherals."--agr (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again, I don't see what the problem is. The purpose of the category system is to help people find images. The category is not crowded and I'm not aware of any controversy as to what should be included. As someone who writes about computer history, I don't think decades are particularly useful.--agr (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's arbitrary. At what point do we add USB sticks and HDs with less than 1GB of data? What about mice with wheels instead of lasers on the bottom? If I add them, will you remove them? On what grounds? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support rename to Historical computer peripherals as things should be plural and it matches its parent. Historical because it's the same in this parent category which goes up the chain. If someone wants historic, then rename it at the parent parent first. Although I agree with User:Themightyquill, it's not a necessary or useful separation but it's done a lot here so I'll go with the common here. I have the same issue with "old" maps and would support deletion and upmerger to just Category:Computer peripherals if I saw a greater consensus for that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Historical is a bad term to be using on commons, but it's not going to be solved here in this discussion. I'm okay with a move to Category:Historical computer peripherals. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
As we can see Category Heraldic mantling sorts an "Heraldic Manteau" (= de:Wappenmantel) not en:Mantling = en:Lambrequin which sorts in Category:Heraldic lambrequins. So I strong propose to rename Category:Heraldic mantling (from the very unclear “”English) to the sometimes heraldic prefered language French: Category:Heraldic Manteau «Category:Heraldic manteaux»⁈ ↔ User:Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 17:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: I see no reason why the French should be any more understandable than German or Spanish or Italian. Mantling is derived from the same root as manteau, mantel and mantilla, the Latin mantellum. English is chosen as the most universal language. Besides, "Heraldic manteau" is a mish-mash of English (first word) and French (second word). It seems Category:Heraldic lambrequins should be merged into Category:Heraldic mantling. DrKiernan (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)- Hello DrKiernan, thanks for your opinion. But I must disagree both (and I can't estimate your Heraldic knowhow), in other languages manteau and lambrequin is something different and as we see it is or was in English too: en:Talk:Mantling#Not the same thing!. French is an heraldic language, it don't matter if the specialized term and the specification name is a different language, if you would know something about heraldic you would know that many “English” terms are from French. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 22:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Boutell's Heraldry[5][6], for example, makes no distinction between mantling and lambrequin. Looking at google searches, it seems mantling is the usual term; lambrequin is more often used in interior decoration. Perhaps you should be suggesting two categories: one for manteaux and one for lambrequins, which are both contained within a super-category mantling. DrKiernan (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- That would be a compromise, I could agree. What means other (@OSeveno and Kiltpin: ) here⁉ ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 19:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- One last thing then, I think the new category should be named Category:Heraldic manteaux, with a small letter m and in plural, matching the small letter l and the plural form in the sister category Heraldic lambrequins. DrKiernan (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes you are right, thank you very much. If no one has a better solution (some other people are also pinged) we can start this next week. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 12:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Changing now to explicit support per the discussion below. Even if "manteaux" is a less-used synonym (in English) for "mantles", "pavilions" and "robes of estate", it is still a more correct term for these files than "mantling". It is better to use a less-well-known name than a wrong one. DrKiernan (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes you are right, thank you very much. If no one has a better solution (some other people are also pinged) we can start this next week. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 12:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- One last thing then, I think the new category should be named Category:Heraldic manteaux, with a small letter m and in plural, matching the small letter l and the plural form in the sister category Heraldic lambrequins. DrKiernan (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- That would be a compromise, I could agree. What means other (@OSeveno and Kiltpin: ) here⁉ ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 19:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Boutell's Heraldry[5][6], for example, makes no distinction between mantling and lambrequin. Looking at google searches, it seems mantling is the usual term; lambrequin is more often used in interior decoration. Perhaps you should be suggesting two categories: one for manteaux and one for lambrequins, which are both contained within a super-category mantling. DrKiernan (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello DrKiernan, thanks for your opinion. But I must disagree both (and I can't estimate your Heraldic knowhow), in other languages manteau and lambrequin is something different and as we see it is or was in English too: en:Talk:Mantling#Not the same thing!. French is an heraldic language, it don't matter if the specialized term and the specification name is a different language, if you would know something about heraldic you would know that many “English” terms are from French. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 22:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Support: As far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't be a discussion about which languages one prefers or comprehends better. In many countries the French terminology for heraldry is the standard in which coat of arms are described. My own native tongue being English nor French, I prefer the French terminology. Even so when I take in account that my comprehension of English is far better than that of French. Should the outcome of this discussion be that the English terminology is favored then I won't object to that either. It is true that Commons Wikimedia is mostly in English. Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)- Thanks also, yes of curse, English is prefered, but in some special cases it has proven to take French if no concrete English term exists (e.g. Category:Attributs héraldiques). ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 02:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thats the reason why I support the proposal. --OSeveno (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: Hello All. No English speaker is going to understand what "manteau" is and is likely going to mistake it for a pavillion, which is, of course, something totally different. As what we are talking about is paper heraldry and not real heraldry, I would support the merger of lambreqins into mantling. Although they are different things, the term mantling is slowly taking over, even amongst the heraldic authorities. Kiltpin (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- You say: “the term mantling is slowly taking over, even amongst the heraldic authorities”. To which “heraldic authorities” are you referring ? On which facts do you base that ? Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, OSeveno. I think the best is an example. This is from the College of Arms' own website – http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/services/granting-arms If you scroll down to "The Design of the Arms", underneath is a grey graphic of their own arms and clearly labelled is mantling. Kiltpin (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- But none of the files in Category:Heraldic mantling show mantling.
- I think I understand now: the files in Category:Heraldic mantling actually show what would be called mantles, pavilions and robes of estates in English and Scottish heraldry. The files actually showing mantling are in Category:Heraldic lambrequins. Hence, Category:Heraldic mantling is misnamed. Lambrequins and mantling should be in the same category and one of those names should be chosen as the name of the category, with the other name serving as a redirect. All the files currently in Category:Heraldic mantling should be moved to a new category, which if named in English would be called "Heraldic mantles", or "Heraldic pavilions" or "Robes of estate in heraldry". Whatever new name is chosen, I now believe Perhelion is right to say that the current category name is wrong. DrKiernan (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note these pages – scroll down to section 2.2.5. Mantles, Robes of Estate, and Pavilions and look at "MANTLING" and "MANTLE AND PAVILION": they explain the difference beween mantling (lambrequin) and mantle (manteau). DrKiernan (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, OSeveno. I think the best is an example. This is from the College of Arms' own website – http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/services/granting-arms If you scroll down to "The Design of the Arms", underneath is a grey graphic of their own arms and clearly labelled is mantling. Kiltpin (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- You say: “the term mantling is slowly taking over, even amongst the heraldic authorities”. To which “heraldic authorities” are you referring ? On which facts do you base that ? Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm changing my position: I am now supporting renaming in favor of the English language, using the word “mantling”. --OSeveno (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ok thanks all for more clarification (another existing term and a big misunderstanding of everyone here in current categorisation) because the English Wikipedia has a huge gap of information here: en:Pavilion (disambiguation) and en:Mantle (has no mentioning, only a incidental word under tincture).
- So the question is Pavilions or Mantles⁇ And rename lambrequins → mantling and mantling → pavilions? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 00:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Kiltpin: Thanks for coming to this discussion, but a small disagree to your statement: In French a "manteau" seems to be a "pavilion" or I'm sorry for misunderstanding English grammar here.
- PS: As the source – given by DrKiernan – says: "they are known as mantles (or manteaux), robes of estate, or pavilions. None of these accoutrements has any place in American heraldic custom." So we are also absolutely not wrong to take this name. I really don't like the term/name "mantle" because to be confused with mantling, as also both given good heraldic sources had to explicit explain this confusing risk (for native English speaking people, because of consequence of amateurish heraldic, which we do should not support here, sorry). ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 00:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying things. I seem to have been confused about what we where talking about. So it seems we are actually talking about two renames: lambrequins → mantling or coverings and mantling → pavilions or baldachins. I added coverings and baldachins as options. Coverings was already mentioned before, baldachins I added because it is the historic term which doesn't leave much room for confusion. IMPORTANT: We should remember that a coat of arms may include BOTH a lambrequin/mantling AND a pavillion/baldachin. See: File:Grand_Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_France_&_Navarre.svg as an example. So I think lambrequins/mantlings and pavillions/baldachins possibly should be on the same level below an other master Category. They're equals in that sense. A name for such a master category I don't have just yet. Perhaps you could agree both a baldachin and a mantle are kinds of “coverings” (a more general term), so then we could name the master category Coverings. As far as I'm concerned (at this time) I think most important is that the names used are as recognizable as possible to Commons Wikimedia users. There may be a (relatively) small heraldry community active but Commons should be as accessible as (reasonably) possible to anyone. Mantling or Coverings would be the best term for lambrequins. On the Category page there should be a small explanation about what mantling is. And this should be with a LangSwitch (in different languages), so as many as possible users will understand. I'm willing to contribute text in some languages. Changing 'mantling → pavilions or baldachin' if we agree on that would also be including an explanation about what that category should include. My new proposal: (1) Create a master category called “coverings” and make that a CatCat or MetaCat so it shouldn't include individual files, only other categories. Post text in it explaining this, using LangSwitch. (2) Rename mantlings → “baldachins” (or pavillions) and (3) rename lambrequins → “mantlings”. Post text in them explaining what they should contain, using LangSwitch. Both categories “baldachins” and “mantlings” should contain only sub-categories according to tinctures/colors. (CatCat or MetaCat) That way their structures will be equal to each other. Post text in both of them explaining what they should contain, using LangSwitch. Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- - Ofcourse, category names should have the word “heraldic” in their name. --OSeveno (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Tending to
- Apparently there's no doubt both designations are correct;
- It has been argued that new trends favor "mantling", which is not a good argument for such a change;
- Mantling is too close to "mantle" and "manteaux", and favors confusion.
- -- Darwin Ahoy! 20:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- - and how about the option of “heraldic baldachins” or “heraldic pavillions” ? --OSeveno (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
@Perhelion, DrKiernan, OSeveno, Kiltpin, and DarwIn: Any chance this has been resolved over the past 6 years, so that we can close discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Not the least idea... Maybe close it and leave it as it is?-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I agree. No change was agreed upon and the discussion faded out. --oSeveno (User talk) 10:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Closing without change. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Craftsman furniture as a duplicate. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello! that plan would be fine with me, though when I created the category I was trying to capture something a bit broader. The "Gustav Stickley" article on Wikipedia (English) says this: [he formed] "Stickley Brothers & Company in 1883" . . . "In the summer of 1900 he worked with Henry Wilkinson and, possibly, LaMont A. Warner (soon his first staff designer) to create his first Arts and Crafts works." So it appears that he created furniture for 17 years before starting his Craftsman style. Anyway, as I say, your plan would be fine with me. cheers, and best wishes for the holidays, Daderot (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley and Daderot: Daderot's concern seems legitimate, but maybe only if we have images of anything produced between 1883 and 1900. Is that the case? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- What is "Stickley furniture"? If we can't define this (even by inventing a definition), we shouldn't have a category for it.
- There are (at least) four or five possible meanings for "Stickley furniture": Early Gustav, Craftsman Gustav, late Gustav and the work of L & J.G Stickley (which might get further divided by age). Then there are the innumerable copyists.
- Only one of these is notable. If it wasn't for the pure Craftsman period work by Gustav and Harvey Ellis, we wouldn't even be here. The other "Stickley" works (such as File:Armchair, designed by Timothy A. Conti, made by Stickley Brothers Co., c. 1901, oak with fruitwood inlay - De Young Museum - DSC00711.JPG or the hideous File:Armchair MET DP216214.jpg) are perhaps notable now, but only as a result of inheriting this notability (see en:WP:NOTINERIT); when the good stuff is so sought after, even the other junk gets collected.
- We should put real Craftsman furniture into Category:Craftsman furniture, nowhere else, and with nothing else in there (possibly accurate later copies of designs, as made by L&JG and others today). I don't much care what we do with the others, although trying to find a definition for "Stickley" would be a good start. As we have a few images of non-Craftsman Stickley then I guess they have to go somewhere. We definitely shouldn't have the good stuff (like File:Gustav Stickley. Dropfront Desk, ca. 1903..jpg or File:Gustav stickley, credenza n. 814, usa 1905 ca.jpg) in categories such as Category:Stickley furniture or Category:Arts and Crafts Movement furniture either as well as (or instead of!) Category:Craftsman furniture. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
No strong opposition. Redirected to Category:Craftsman furniture -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
There are numerous (small) issues relating to this category:
Only has Category:Buses in the United Kingdom as a parent, but does not have its other logical parent (the global preserved bus cat)I've added Category:Vintage buses- Is the category for buses in the UK, or buses of the UK? eg Would an American Greyhound at a British museum belong here? How about a London Routemaster in an American museum? Looking at the content (cats for individual buses), I'd suggest of is appropriate correct conjunction - if a British bus is bought by an American, its still a British bus. Likewise if it goes on a tour of France, its still a British bus when its in Calais.
- The sub-category names are poorly laid out. Category names should be of the form "<natural name of subject> (<disambiguator>)", like with Category:Venus (planet), Category:Venus (dea). Aircraft and ship cats are a better analog to the subject matter and also conform: eg Category:Titanic (ship, 1912) and Category:G-ABDW (aircraft). That would suggest "9 RDV (Preserved bus in the UK)" not "Preserved bus in the UK (9 RDV)"
- Why "in the UK" in the sub-cat names? Again it introduces the is it in UK or somewhere else confusion, and isn't necessary to describe a bus - its a bus surely that's what matters?
- For that matter why "preserved"? Won't that exclude historic images of the bus in service - before preservation, when it was in regular service? The cat is for the bus, not the bus in the second half of its life?
- That would leave "9 RDV (bus)" as a cat name. That might be ok, if minimal. However, it could be built to a more useful category name like, which indicates the model type. "AEC Reliance 9 RDV (bus)" "AEC Reliance (bus, 9 RDV)""AEC Reliance (bus, registration 9 RDV)" are possibilities and give more useful cat names.
- I realise that the reg number may not be sufficient to uniquely identify the bus in question. In such cases "British" or "Northern Irish" could be prefixed to the reg number?
Nilfanion (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Geof Sheppard: I'd appreciate your thoughts on this (and ping other editors who may be interested?). I believe my proposal above would result in a substantial improvement, but will take a lot of work. Its daft to leave this CFD open, and have the category tagged, if no-one is going to comment. In that case, I'll interpret lack of comment as silent consensus for change.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- This category has been worrying me for a while now. Any with more than 1,000 sub-categiories needs some attention and this has (right now) 2,267.
- 2) I think it needs to remain as 'in' the UK as that matches its parent Category:Buses in the United Kingdom. If you wnat to find pictures of preserved Routemasters in the USA then there is Category:AEC Routemaster buses by country.
- 3) I have removed images of preserved buses before preservation from these sub-categories and left a link in the description area, for example Category:Preserved bus in the UK (LEU 263P). I would like to keep them out of the preserved bus sub-categiries as they aren't preserved.
- 6) If were were rename all the individual bus categories then their parents should logically be sub-categories of Category:Body on chassis buses in the United Kingdom, e.g. Category:Preserved ECW on Bristol VRT/SL3 bus (LEU 263P).
- 7) Unless you know a bus by registration, just listing them as they are is no help at all. As a minimum they ought so be sorted into sub-categoiries that match those found under Category:Open top buses in the United Kingdom by configuration, i.e. Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom (double-deck, flat front). I also think that we should use sort keys based on their registration so that the list of sub-categories is broken into smaller groups.
- Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think the sub-categories really should be for the individual buses, and not just the period when they are preserved. The bottom tier of the bus category tree as a whole ought to be categories for individual buses. For example, these images could be grouped together. The naming scheme for individual bus categories be systematic for all British buses - preserved and not.
- The category that is most similar to this one has to be Category:Preserved locomotives of Great Britain, and the final sub-categories there are for the entire lifespan of the locomotives (eg Category:LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman, not Category:LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman in preservation).
- Sub-categorising this one as you suggest makes sense.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Geof Sheppard: , Ultra7, Davey2010: Based on above I've created two new cats (one is a preserved bus, the other in regular service):
Category:Bristol L bus (LTA 729)Category:Bristol on Bristol LL bus (LTA 729)- Category:Plaxton Pointer on Dennis Dart bus (R125 0FJ)
Personally, I feel the first is much better than its previous title of "Preserved bus in the UK (LTA 729)"; and the latter should be workable for almost all buses (but needs an expert to properly categorise).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're right that it needs an expert to categorise - LTA729 isn't actually a Brsitol L. I've created Category:Bristol on Bristol LL bus (LTA 729) which is what this should be. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorted that move - it was based on how it was already categorised; I'll restrict any efforts I make to where the model has already been identified. By the way, you should have been able to move the category page (to preserve edit history etc).
- I wonder if the most useful way to break down Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom would be manufacturer cats (eg Category:Preserved Bristol buses in the United Kingdom). It would certainly be easiest to curate. Additional schemes such as the configuration, date of manufacture, and so on will also work, no need to restrict it to one way. Having individual buses in the category is clearly unsustainable.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think that breaking down the category into what a bus looks like (single deck, half cab; double deck, full front; etc.) would be more useful for general viewers than categorising by manufacturer, especially as most have two manufacturers! Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- True enough, and I see no reason for why we cannot have multiple parallel schemes; as elsewhere. My thinking behind using manufacturer is: 1. If you are looking for a preserved bus, you are probably looking for a specific bus, and probably know the manufacturer already (if not exact model) 2. its easy to implement, if the individual buses already specify the manufacturer(s) in their cat's title.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think that breaking down the category into what a bus looks like (single deck, half cab; double deck, full front; etc.) would be more useful for general viewers than categorising by manufacturer, especially as most have two manufacturers! Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Nilfanion and Geof Sheppard: It seems clear that this category is fine in and of itself, but that there are still some issues, so here is feedback to the OP list of items:
- Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom is an intersection of Category:Buses in the United Kingdom and Category:Preserved buses (indexed there in Category:Preserved buses by country). It does not however belong under Category:Vintage buses, as vintage vehicles are defined to belong to a specific period (1919-1930) and preserved buses may be from any period.
- This category is for all buses, regardless of origin, which are depicted in a preserved condition while located within the United Kingdom. It is fine to also have categories for buses by country or origin, manufacturer, operator, or whatever else is worthwhile to cover those aspects.
- The sub-cats should absolutely be renamed. A simple "(natural name) (dab)" format is correct, and aircraft are a good reference generally. For example, Category:Preserved bus in the UK (1 RDV) should simply be Category:1 RDV (bus) (in this case we only have media of it in preserved state so no sub-division is required, but if warranted a specific category for the bus in preserved state could be create to differentiate between that and files depicting it in operational service in the past, if we had both for the same bus).
- As with number 3, 'in the United Kingdom' would only be useful if we have files depicting the bus in preserved condition in both the United Kingdom and in some other country. Not sure if this case even exists. Otherwise, 'in the United Kingdom' should not be part of individual bus category names.
- "Preserved" is a specific condition. Categories for other conditions should be used for files depicting buses in those conditions. Files under the "preserved" tree should only be those actually depicting buses in preserved condition, not during other periods of the life of a bus.
- As with number 3, the main cat for an individual bus should be as simple as possible, of Category:1 RDV (bus) is absolutely fine. There is no need or value to adding a bunch of descriptive text into the title of the category, as this will be a constant game of how much to add, what does or does not belong, and whether or not what is there is accurate. Instead, the minimum necessary to uniquely identify the topic is preferable. Category:Superbus Type 15 Mark V with optional air conditioner now preserved at the Awesome Bus Museum with plate number 123-ABC in grey and blue Fast Line Bus Service livery (1938 edition) is obviously not where anyone wants to go with category names. Ideally, information about the bus type, history, operator, etc. will be maintained in a Wikidata item and {{Wikidata Infobox}} can be used to add this all to the category page display to give users all of that juicy information.
Josh (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- I totally agree that the huge number of individual buses in this category needs to be resolved. I still believe that sub-categories by broad types, e.g. Catgeory:Single-deck half cab preserved buses of the United Kingdom, are needed so that browsing can be a bit easier.
- My instinct is that we should specify preservation in the disambiguation, e.g. Category:LEU 263P (preserved bus). While only a few preserved buses have Wikimedia pictures showing it in service, this is starting to grow as more recent buses are withdrawn and taken into preservation. Some buses have previous operators as parent categories, so perhaps we should deal with that too: Category:P701 BTA (preserved Stagecoach Devon bus)?
- Moving the registration number to the start of the category name will help us get away from having several thousand sub-categories listed under the letter 'P' for preserved!
- @Geof Sheppard: For a particular bus, "Category:REG 123 (bus)" is proper for its parent category name, containing all images of that bus. If there are more than a handful of files depicting different stages of its life, sub categories can be used:
-
- Category:756 KFC in City of Oxford service (for files depicting it while in active service with an operator)
- Category:756 KFC at the Oxford Bus Museum (for files depicting it as preserved/displayed)
-
- I of course support fully having buses sub-divided by general type as well as manufacturer, as is currently done in Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom by body manufacturer, Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom by chassis manufacturer, and Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom by type. I would also add Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom by museum (for those in a museum collection) and Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom by operator (for those being used by heritage operators). Currently, Category:Bus museums in the United Kingdom is under Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom, but this is inappropriate, as bus museums probably have more on display than merely the buses themselves. Instead, I would put the new Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom by museum under the existing Category:Bus museums in the United Kingdom, with the latter properly removed from Category:Preserved buses in the United Kingdom. Josh (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Closed Josh (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)