Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2014/11
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 November 2014
What's the point with this category? Category:Photographs taken on 2012-01-24 should be created and used instead. Josve05a (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are right. I made a mistake when I created it. I will move it. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- It has been moved. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Speedily deleted, bad name for Category:Photographs taken on 2012-01-24. --rimshottalk 23:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
To be deleted. Redundant category, "Category:Sorø Bystation" should be used Beethoven9 (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Empty category, please delete. Created to sort one file, but better organized under its specific river, since no other cities/provinces use this style.--Patrick, oѺ∞ 17:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nominated for Speedy Deletion now.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Speedily deleted, empty now. --rimshottalk 17:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
First off "Asian" should be capitalized, likewise with Category:Rivers of Turkey (european part), but should these two categories be divided as such? Is there precedent? It seems like the division is to allow the larger Category:Rivers of Europe and Category:Rivers of Asia to be included in each. And if they should be divided, is "part" the best wording? I've heard "Asian side" or "European side" much more often, but think that "Rivers of Turkey in Asia" and "Rivers of Turkey in Europe" is much cleaner. Patrick, oѺ∞ 17:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have problem with better names for this categories. Mircea (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I went ahead and moved the categories to "Rivers of Turkey in Asia" and "Rivers of Turkey in Europe" as I'd suggested, and updated the subcategories and files there. If there's no problem, I think this discussion can be closed.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Rivers of Turkey in Asia and Category:Rivers of Turkey in Europe, resp. --rimshottalk 17:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
How many litres of alcohol can you bring in coming from australia 110.143.219.119 01:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- See [1], but why would you want to, really? Also, this is the place for discussing category naming and similar things, for general questions, try the Reference Desk. --rimshottalk 07:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Nothing done, not a category discussion. --rimshottalk 07:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Brzezimierz has only one church category is confusing Pnapora (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
This category is incorrect and should be deleted. Correct category: Hermann Guggenheim (in Publishers from Switzerland) Freely (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
paul Becat, one of the greates erotic aritst of the 20th century is not included in wikimedia-wikipedia list of erotic artists?? 71.204.128.196 18:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Commons is a media repository, and categories are a way of organizing media. We have no media by this artist, because they are not yet out of copyright, en:Paul-Émile Bécat died in 1960. That's why there's nothing to categorize. --rimshottalk 23:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Not done, categories are not lists. --rimshottalk 23:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Cacographie, à supprimer sans discussion : la catégorie correcte ("...Saint-Michel de ...") existe Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom, unused, parent is Category:Églises_et_chapelles_de_Saint-Michel-l'Observatoire. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Doublon (vide), à supprimer (mille excuses!). Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Empty. Pauline Peugniez (1890-1897) is not in public domain. No freedom of panorama in France. 82.124.24.24 16:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Speedied as empty category. --Rosenzweig τ 22:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete: apparently created on File talk:DNA replication en.svg, perhaps to initiate discussion of the file in question, but this category is not realistically usable. Animalparty (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Empty category. The building is not under freedom of panorama. --217.21.43.22 10:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Category is empty. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- If someone needs to search for a certain type of bicycle, bicycles by country is completely useless. Actually I think, the bicycle by country categories are not useful at all. Much more useful, as bicycle semi-expert I am, and for categorization purposes, is to create categories that could be useful for everyone's searches and academic purposes. Road bicycles, urban bicycles, cross-road bicycles, antique bicycles are very relevant categories that could be in bicycles by model.Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Confusion. You're right!Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: empty --JuTa 22:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Created by mistake when I failed to notice Category:Videos of game theory already existed MartinPoulter (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I propose renaming to Category:Gerasim Golovkov. --195.50.31.213 22:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- We already have Category:Gerasim S. Golovkov, I propose to merge the category there. A redirect should probably be kept, because the Russian name of a Russian artist might very well be re-created. --rimshottalk 19:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Rimshot. --Jonund (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Gerasim S. Golovkov, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 21:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Redundant duplicate of Category:Economic history. Also ungrammatical MartinPoulter (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, you should have requested its deletion instead. - Olybrius (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- On second thought a redirect might be more helpful. - Olybrius (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for implementing the redirect. I'm new to deletion discussions: there's a toolbar button for nominating for discussion, but is there a one-click way to nominate a category for deletion? MartinPoulter (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hm, not that I know of, but you can use {{Bad name}} for duplicate categories. --rimshottalk 23:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for implementing the redirect. I'm new to deletion discussions: there's a toolbar button for nominating for discussion, but is there a one-click way to nominate a category for deletion? MartinPoulter (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- On second thought a redirect might be more helpful. - Olybrius (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Economic history, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 23:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate to Category:Logo of Political Parties in Mauritius Kingroyos (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Category:Logos of political parties in Mauritius, delete Category:Logo of Political Parties in Mauritius, unless all parties there share a single logo. --rimshottalk 21:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Logos of political parties in Mauritius, as per myself, after no objection. --rimshottalk 22:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Category of an emailadres Basvb (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, looks like accidental creation. --rimshottalk 23:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Content has been properly sorted into Category:2013–14 LFL Australia season and individual team cats. This cat is no longer needed and can be deleted. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 23:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:David R. Hogg Gbawden (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I have moved the images to Category:David R. Hogg. --Jonund (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Merged to Category:David R. Hogg as per nom. --rimshottalk 07:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This is totally an empty category now. Should we still continue to have it? Muzammil (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC). Muzammil (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for this discussion. I only forgot to ask for deletion like you can do for every kind of empty categories without discuting before. It's an uncontoroversial rule. bye--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 11:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
|
I haver seen this Russian name on Special:WantedCategories. I know Polish name for this, but not the English one, so I did not rename it. Now I have seen also Ukrainian version. What should English name be? Literal translation is something like "equipment of individual protection of respiratory system". And how to categorize this properly? --BartekChom (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- According to ru:Средства индивидуальной защиты органов дыхания this is common name for Category:Respirators and Category:Gas masks --Butko (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Equipment of individual protection of respiratory system. --rimshottalk 07:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Empty category Pikador (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 11:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Contains only one template which is nominated for deletion. Correct spelling is Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery, which already exists. PKM (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- deleting. --Jarekt (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom., bad name. --rimshottalk 21:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I created it but there is already Category:Infrastructure_in_Fiji Alan Liefting (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate and the only category in Category:Infrastructure by country with of. --rimshottalk 07:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
empty category masquerading as an article. Alan Liefting (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom., out of scope. --rimshottalk 07:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Propose moving to Category:Sanborn maps of the Bronx published in 1915, similar to the other cats in the parent Category:Sanborn maps of the Bronx. The most important characteristic of historical maps to the user, after locality, is chronology. The Atlas number is part of the NYPL's filing system, and is mentioned in the file descriptions and the category description. Vzeebjtf (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I will make the move. Vzeebjtf (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Propose moving to Category:Sanborn maps of Manhattan published in 1909, similar to the other cats in the parent Category:Sanborn maps of Manhattan. The most important characteristic of historical maps to the user, after locality, is chronology. The Atlas number is part of the NYPL's filing system, and is mentioned in the file descriptions and the category description. Vzeebjtf (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I will make the move. Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Propose moving to Category:Sanborn maps of the Bronx published in 1918, similar to the other cats in the parent Category:Sanborn maps of the Bronx. The most important characteristic of historical maps to the user, after locality, is chronology. The Atlas number is part of the NYPL's filing system, and is mentioned in the file descriptions and the category description. Vzeebjtf (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have no objection · Favalli ⟡ 01:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I will make the move. Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Propose moving to Category:Sanborn maps of Brooklyn published in 1904, similar to the cats in Category:Sanborn maps of Manhattan and Category:Sanborn maps of the Bronx. The most important characteristic of historical maps to the user, after locality, is chronology. The Atlas number is part of the NYPL's filing system, and is mentioned in the file descriptions and the category description. Vzeebjtf (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I will make the move. Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Mayors of Rotterdam using dutch language ErickAgain 12:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion: {{catredirect|Mayors of Rotterdam}}.–Be..anyone (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)- Better to delete then to redirect because of the uncommon naming scheme. Starting with Rotterdam followed by a comma and then the Mayor part. 'Burgemeester, Rotterdam' would still be uncommon but be more in line with namings used on commons.--ErickAgain 10:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Pre-existing Category:Politicians of South Korea. Having two nearly identical categories creates confusion. Animalparty (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- This looks like {{Move cat}} can solve the problem. (And delete the cat in question.) I will command COM:CDC if nobody objects for 24 hrs. — revimsg 12:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Politicians of South Korea as per nom. --rimshottalk 20:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep, because it is merely a meta-category for maintenance to keep the soundness of category structure, along with below categories which were also deletion requested:
- Of course, these multi-parameter version of [[Category:Categories by subject]] seems complicated and hard to use for human. However, the divide and conquer strategy provided by Category feature, tends to result numerous instance of very similar categories that have too many potentially parametric keywords. For example, already existing rational category, [[Category:Transport companies of Poland by city]] and [[Category:Food production companies of Poland by city]] have just only one explicit parameter "city"; and, the keywords in category names "of Poland" and, "Transport ..." or "Food production", should be parametrized potentially if similar categories were exist or would be created near the future.
- In reality, I've planned to create Category:Guitar manufacturers by city by country, Category:Guitar manufacturers by subdivision by country, etc. And, if above meta-categories were created in advance, implicit multi-parameter categories seen on above example (i.e. [[Category:Transport companies of Poland by city]], and its family) might be well organized. Thus, these meta-categories should be kept. --Clusternote (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment I'm glad if you kindly collect other deletion requests ([2], [3], [4]) into this page for avoiding the dispersion of discussions. --Clusternote (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we need to clarify a few things that I think are not very clear.
1) The categories are used to gather and sort the files by topic or subject to make it easier to find them. It also serves to reduce the confusion of too many files. That's why creating a category for one or two files does not make much sense, because to the confusion of the files will also add the confusion of the categories.
2) Similarly, the creation of higher categories serves to collect several categories to reduce the confusion of too many categories. Here we have the opposite, that for only one category (Companies of Poland by city by industry) were created as many as 3 unnecessary upper-categories (Companies by industry by country by location, over-cat of Categories by subject by subject by subject (flat list), over-cat of Categories by subject by subject), so to arrange one category, we have created a mess of three other categories. Is this useful? The system in Commons is like a tree: the categories are all connected to each other by higher categories (or upper-categories, or mother categories) more and more generic, and lower categories (or sub-categories, or daughter categories) more and more specific.
3) For this reason, to create a series of higher categories that relate to each other, that run after each other, it makes no sense. If it makes sense the Category: Companies of Poland by city by industry, it makes no sense its upper-category Category: Companies by industry by country by location which is in addition to a range of other above-categories without having any function that to add a useless category.
4) To this we must add that while meta-categories with two parameter does not create any problem in understanding, those with three parameters already created difficulties between the Anglo-Saxon and the Latin mindset (where for example the "Category: Transport companies of Poland by city" for the Latin mentality would be a "category by country by city", according to the order in writing; while for the Anglo-Saxon mentality it's a "category by city by country", in reverse order. In this already difficult situation must be avoided meta-categories with four parameters that do not make understand what they really contain or should contain. In fact we do not have in the Commons system meta-categories with four parameters.
5) Moreover, categories with the same parameter as "by subject by subject" or "by subject by subject by subject" mean absolutely nothing and should only be deleted.
6) If you create a category, it must serve some purpose, it must be useful in some way. I wonder what good is and who serves the Category:Categories by subject by subject (flat list). It contains two useless categories "by subject by subject", and then other categories that are "by city, by country, by location, by subject", that all go categorized in their flat list. There is no need for this new flat list, absolutely absurd as well as incomprehensible. Create categories or meta-categories for their own sake, has no utility and no sense. They only serve to create confusion in the categorization system that is already sufficiently complex.
For these reasons, I ask that all of these meaningless and unhelpful categories, made just for the pleasure of creating new categories, are simply abolished and removed. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Category deleted. --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- For detailed discussion, please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/11/Category:Categories by subject by subject by subject (flat list) --Clusternote (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Category deleted. See discussion here. --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- For detailed discussion, please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/11/Category:Categories by subject by subject by subject (flat list) --Clusternote (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Category deleted. See discussion here. --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- For detailed discussion, please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/11/Category:Categories by subject by subject by subject (flat list) --Clusternote (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Category deleted. See discussion here. --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Only two entries and not a particulary notable person. Also, the title has bad grammar~. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
So how does this work?
Deleted: INeverCry 02:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
deletion rationale Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
On 29.10.14 ŠJů created a new category. With the name: Harmonie (Sri Chinmoy, Prague). For two pictures i think the old category (Statues of Sri Chinmoy) are enough. The name Harmonie certainly find I wrong. And the motivation why he uploaded pictures and created category i think because he want to make this path negativ. --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It was added on 4.11 in category two neutral pictures--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
No relevant reason to delete the category. As the Prague statue had two photos in Commons, the specific category became useful. The category "Statues of Sri Chinmoy" is its parent category, of course. The name of that Prague statue is clearly referred in the linked source. The statue is presented as inspired by look of Sri Chinmoy, not as a portret statue. Sincerely, your speculations about motivation is a bit incomprehensible for me. Its a standard work on Commons, to photograph public art works and to upload, describe and categorize photos. --ŠJů (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
" Category:Statue of Sri Chinmoy in Prague" how the other categorys named. When you have better pictures and uploade it when is for deletion enter. And how you describ category and titel. Gives a smell of motivation. --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I see no relevant argument for deletion in your contribution. The category is named by the official name of the work, supplemented by adequate disambiguation. --ŠJů (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The other categories to the statues have the name "Statues of Sri Chinmoy xxx" https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Statues_of_Sri_Chinmoy. An the category-name gives no hint that it is for a statue. --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- For some reason, I have been asked to comment here by the nominator. While I'd prefer a name including statue (such as Harmonie statue (Prague)), there is certainly no reason to delete this category. FDMS 4 19:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
On the Plaque from statue stand: Socha Harmonie (CZ) / The Statue of Harmony http://www.worldharmonyrun.org/images/czechrepublic/news/2012/0427/0427_73.jpg --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed – ŠJů, why didn't you use the English name? FDMS 4 16:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Proper names should be not translated even though Onestone can be "more English" than Einstein. This piece was presented by Czech name as the source documents. --ŠJů (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- The English version of the plaque and the category description both don't mention Harmonie, so it can be assumed that Harmony is also an "official" name. Praha is a proper name too … FDMS 4 19:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I see no plaque on the statue nor around it. The description linked an external source which used the Czech name of the statue only. I see no source supporting the opinion that the English word "Harmony" is widely or officially used for this specific statue. However, there is any disharmony between the official report in Czech (Odhalení sochy Harmonie v Praze, dated July 6 2013) and parallel report in English (Sri Chinmoy statue in Prague, dated June 11 2013). The Czech version doesn't declare it is a statue of Sri Chinmoy (is presented only as "inspired"), while the English version doesn't use the word "Harmony" as a proper name of the statue. --ŠJů (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I missed the link to the photo of the plaque. I'm not able to recognize the plaque on the photos of the whole statue but I´m compliant to use the English name of the statue as it is used on the plaque. I think, Category:Statue of Harmony (Prague) is unambiguous enough. --ŠJů (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Me too! @Richard Reinhardt: Objections? FDMS 4 19:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- The English version of the plaque and the category description both don't mention Harmonie, so it can be assumed that Harmony is also an "official" name. Praha is a proper name too … FDMS 4 19:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Proper names should be not translated even though Onestone can be "more English" than Einstein. This piece was presented by Czech name as the source documents. --ŠJů (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Btw. I think, the fact that the statue cannot be openly presented as a statue of a living man is caused by the experience with the Stalin Monument (1955–1962). Monuments to living people are perceived as immoral in our country. --ŠJů (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The original deletion is for me now not necessary because three new pictures have been added to category. --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- The deletion was not necessary even when the category contained 2 images. In modular categorization system, even 2 images of any subject are enough for a category. In some special cases, even a category for 1 image can be correct and useful. --ŠJů (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Btw., if the category name is not descriptive but use a proper name of the subject, we use that name as a category name directly, and the type of the subject (if needed) is used as a dissambiguation in brackets. See Category:The Four Seasons (Vivaldi), Category:The Four Elements (Arcimboldo, 1566), Category:Panda (ship, 1964) etc. However, in this case, the word "Statue" is used as a part of the proper name of the statue on the plaque. --ŠJů (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are actually right, we don't usually use non-bracket disambigs for artworks (
Mona Lisa painting), but just the full name and a location, artist and/or time disambig if necessary. Maybe this category should be called The Statue of Harmony (Prague)? As for not-primarily-artwork objects such as ships and […], you've just reminded me of something :) . FDMS 4 21:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The Statue of Harmony (Prague) i think also designated right for the category name.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Closed: The category has been moved. FDMS 4 14:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The category should be moved to Category:Krishna Janmashtami as "Janmashtami" is more popular name than "Gokulashtami" for the day when Krishna's birth is celebrated. Also majority of Wikipedias call it so. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- As the original category creator a long time ago, I have no objection. --Ranveig (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Krishna Janmashtami, as per nom. --rimshottalk 22:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The category has an incorrect date. Invicta was launched in 1939, therefore the category should be Category:Invicta (ship, 1939). Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- The date is correct. In Wikimedia Commons we use the year of completion, not the year of launching. The year of launching is used in some local Wikipedias, as e.g. the English Wikipedia. Please read the heading in Category:Ships by name. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is, that Wikimedia Commons is a project used for all Wikipedia's and unfortunately they differ in approach. We had discussions a few years ago and one of the reasons is, that the launching can be years before completion (especially for naval ships) and old printed media have much more info available about completed ships that they have for ship launchings. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Not done, no reply to objection. --rimshottalk 23:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Redundant duplicate of Category:Economic charts of India MartinPoulter (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Economy of India graphs and Category:Economic charts of India are both redundant duplicates of Category:Economic statistics for India. It is fine by me to move everything there. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't feel strongly about this, but there could be things that fit in Category:Economic statistics for India but not Category:Economic charts of India. I'm thinking of PDF documents with statistics (there's just one example there are the moment) or tables of statistics (though of course these should usually be in HTML rather than image form). MartinPoulter (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see your logic, but I personally like seeing them both in the same category of statistics, because then it is easier to see if the available statistics are being covered by any of the charts. It helps chart makers in doing their work. Once a chart is made it is easier to justify deleting the tables it is based on. The stats table can be added below the description box on the chart image page. It is easy to do because the stats are required in order to create the chart. The hard part of transcribing stats from an image table, or finding the source spreadsheet file or CSV file, has been done by the chart maker. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't feel strongly about this, but there could be things that fit in Category:Economic statistics for India but not Category:Economic charts of India. I'm thinking of PDF documents with statistics (there's just one example there are the moment) or tables of statistics (though of course these should usually be in HTML rather than image form). MartinPoulter (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- As Category:Economy of India graphs is empty right now I would recommend just deleting it. Delphi234 (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. I put a speedy tag on the category page. {{speedy|empty category}}
- --Timeshifter (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 08:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the rules are on category languages, but the name for the formation is "British Forces Germany", so I think we should probably use the native language and change the category to British Forces Germany. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Category names are supposed to be in English. This case, where an official English name exists, looks pretty obvious to me. Unless there is any opposition, I'll move the category to Category:British Forces Germany, leaving a redirect for the German name (which, I suppose, is also official). --rimshottalk 22:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:British Forces Germany, as per nom. --rimshottalk 17:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Ill defined category name. Alan Liefting (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- It does have interwiki links explaining what it's supposed to contain (the favourites of royalty), but obviously this doesn't work very well - it is clean now only because I removed a bunch of butterfly images. If it is kept, it should at least get a description. I agree with the nomination though, even if a description were added, it would still be unclear who to count as a favourite. I think that this category can be deleted. --rimshottalk 21:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Template:Reject A favourite (valido in Spanish) has been clearly defined within the literature. I can't see any problem with the category. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 17:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- We sould move it to Category:Royal favourites as per Wikipedia. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Royal favourites, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 18:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
"Güttershuppen" is a misspelling; category (if there's a need for such a category) should be renamed "Güterschuppen Bahnhof Landquart" or "Landquart railway goods shed". NAC (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Danke, there is an error, I agree. I would appreciate if we can rename it using the "official name" used by the Swiss Confederation because it is a cultural heritage. The official name is "Güterschuppen RhB/SBB". Plese look here at the "GR 2014" PDF. The location is Igis which is a small village part of Landquart. RhB = Rhätische Bahn which is an UNESCO heritage and SBB = Schweizerische Bundesbahnen but I agree that "Güterschuppen Bahnhof Landquart" is good denomination. --Ilario (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Done: Cat and files moved to Category:Güterschuppen Bahnhof Landquart, cat marked bad name. --Achim (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Güterschuppen Bahnhof Landquart. --Achim (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Non-free content cannot exist on Commons, thus ther should be no category for it besides Speedy Deletion. Animalparty (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see now. In that case I withdraw my nomination. Animalparty (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Kept, withdrawn and not empty. --rimshottalk 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Possibly this category should be merged with Category:Videos by language 195.50.31.213 23:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. Current name is against our naming custom. --Pitke (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. --rimshottalk 21:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Possibly this category should be merged with Category:Videos by country 195.50.31.213 23:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
just one picture for this category = useless. Sammyday (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I can upload this photo to have an other ;-) . --Paralacre (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Dans la pratique, il n'est pas rare d'avoir des catégories avec une seule photo, c'est ce que je fais systématiquement dans le cyclisme, ça permet de faire le lien via Wikidata avec les versions linguistiques de Wikipédia. Ensuite, quand de nouvelles photos viennent s'ajouter, le travail est déjà fait. Mais c'est vrai que Sammyday n'est pas un gros contributeur de Commons. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Single-file categories for persons are useful, because they keep the person categories, like Category:1957 births cleaner and make it much easier to add new files. --rimshottalk 23:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Kept as per discussion. --rimshottalk 21:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
All the images in the category are in deletion request process. It will probably soon be empty. BrightRaven (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Now empty as predicted. Marked speedy. --Achim (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Merge with Category:Paul Yule. Jonund (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Paul Alan is three times more common in English, but Paul Yule is 6,5 times more common in German:
A google search for "archaeology" and "paul alan yule" gives 7860 hits;
A google search for "archaeology" and "paul yule" gives 2670 hits;
A google search for "archäologie" and "paul alan yule" gives 744 hits;
A google search for "archäologie" and "paul yule" gives 4880 hits.
The WP article is named Paul Alan Yule, and there is a WP article named Paul Yule about a photographer and filmmaker. --Jonund (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Support agree. --Achim (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe we should call the category Paul Allan Yule, consistent with enwp and distinct from the photographer and filmmaker. --Jonund (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe we should call the category Paul Allan Yule, consistent with enwp and distinct from the photographer and filmmaker. --Jonund (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Paul Alan Yule as per discussion. --rimshottalk 20:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Rename to Día de Muertos / Día de los Muertos or simiar variant, but in Spanish. It is gratuitous cultural misappropriation for WP to take this strongly Hispanic festival and anglicise the name. There isn't even a redirect from the real name. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't a Wikipedia, it's commons with folks using lots of languages. And generally the best approach to i18n is to have an
i-default(basic English) name, maybe a redirect from the most plausible localized form, and then hope that search engines and translators arrive at the overall best result for most of the users. In this special case I think you're right, but I'm not sure. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)- Category contains 9 subcats (1 marked speedy), one of which is Category:Day of the Dead in Mexico, and 1 gallery page Día de muertos, so putting a category redirect from Category:Día de Muertos to Category:Day of the Dead in Mexico seems to be suitable. --Achim (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Category:Día de Muertos redirected. --Achim (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Commons catname should be on english Category:Winners of Wikiviajes por Venezuela 2014 The Photographer (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Already done by User:The Photographer. --Achim (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Dublicate category. Also exists Category:Lake Ioannina, but I would like some help about the title of which should be preferred.. C messier (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
=== I think it's better to take the original and distinct name of "Lake Pamvotis", used since several centuries ; I know that english term (see wikipedia in english) is "Lake Ioannina", but - I'm sorry - it is not the correct name, just like "Lake of Geneva" in place of "Lake Léman". For lake Pamvotis, there are several use that confirm the name, see : http://www.tetragon.gr/en/blog/information-centre-lake-pamvotis-nissi-ioannina an information centre on the island of lake pamvotis
http://www.lakepamvotis.gr/ the management agency for protection of the lake
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0075951106000557 an article on biology of the lake
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2004-1277+0+DOC+XML+V0//FR Questions parlementaires au Parlement européen
See also the citation in the wikipedia article on lac Léman https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac_L%C3%A9man François-Alphonse Forel, médecin et scientifique suisse de la fin du XIXe siècle, dit que « l'usage tend à s'établir en géographie, et cela avec raison, de préférer, partout où il en existe, le nom personnel d'un lac au nom de la ville située sur ses bords. Un lac est un individu géographique en lui-même et par lui-même ». --Jean Housen 16:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with the title "Lake Pamvotis" (with out the parenthesis). --C messier (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Moved content of categories to new Category:Lake Pamvotis as above. --Achim (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The name is clearly wrong; "Pennsylvania" needs a capital letter. However, I'm not so sure how useful this category is; it's meant for railroad companies, and US railroad companies aren't easily categorised by state, since they frequently crossed state lines. Note that all contents are images of the same Pennsylvania Railroad caboose; perhaps we could just rename the category "Caboose on display in New Oxford, Pennsylvania" and change the parent categories. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. There's no state-by-state categorization for defunct companies and one wouldn't make sense. Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems more correct technically to create a new category and delete this one, which I have done. Called it Category:Caboose at New Oxford Train Station. BMacZero (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
This category contains a large number of personal photos (out of scope photos can be deleted). Buxtehude (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Source category, should not be decided on before the deletion request has been handled. --Pitke (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Still used. --McZusatz (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
O termo "ligeiro" é impreciso no âmbito da classificação da frota da C.C.F.L. e da identificação dos seus elementos:
- É sinónimo aproximado de single-truck car, opondo-se a "salão", mas não se aplica aos caixotes desta tipologia;
- por vezes, desde 1995, é contra-posto ao termo "remodelado", mas obscurece assim a diferença entre os 701-735 e os 736-745 ao amalgamá-los;
- é finalmente por vezes tido por sinónimo de "standard", em oposição a "caixote" (e a outros nomes de modelos, anteriores e posteriores, como "charroco", "boi", "articulado", "almanjarra", "são luís", e "brill"), o que é incorreto e enganador (já que houve bogie cars, nada “ligeiros”, com caixa standard).
Em suma, ainda que o termo seja de registar e glosar detalhadamente na Wikipédia, o seu uso terminológico numa categoria do Commons é improdutivo. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely, awkward term: and "spring ability" can be construed in multiple ways (e.g. physics concepts like elasticity or coiled spring devices). The implication here is redundant to existing Category:Jumping. Category should be deleted rather than redirected to jumping, to avoid conflation with the above meanings. Animalparty (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support - It is far too general. Also, "ability" is an attribute that would probably never appear in a practical search string. Lambtron (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- FYI - There are at least two different ways of jumping, namely: the first one, when you, for instance, decided to jump from a table to the ground (why not?), and the second one, when you decided the opposite. The last requires a certain spring ability of your muscles. The term spring ability is "awkward" only for people ignorant in sports; see, e.g., http://www.rg-leotards.com/tips/rhythmic-gymnastics-spring-ability-training .ShustovVal (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Ability" implies a mechanism, not an action -- the act of springing is simply "springing". If we keep the "spring ability" category then it should be limited to devices and mechanisms (e.g., mousetraps, grasshopper apodemes) that have the ability to spring. On the other hand, if the category is intended to cover acts of springing then it should just be called "springing". And if that's the case, how is the act of "springing" onto or off of a table different from "jumping"? Lambtron (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ShustovVal: Regadless of how many types of jumping there are or whether "spring ability" refers to an action or mechanism, it remains unclear which types of media should be placed in the category. Wouldn't the image of a jumping person, albeit illustrating the person's ability to spring, be more appropriately placed in Category:Jumping people? A frog, a gymnast, a mousetrap, and a jack-in-the-box have the ability to spring, should they be placed here? Further, one might argue that Category:Jumping should be nested within Spring ability, rather than the other way around, as the ability is a prerequisite for the act. The fact that a term exists does not necessitate a category for it, especially when the hierarchy and scope is nebulous; "images related to the area of Jumping" should probably just go in Category:Jumping. If the intended scope of the category is gymnastics exercises, then perhaps a less-ambiguous, more intuitive name could be created to aid all who might wish to use the category, be they knowledgeable in sports, physics, biology, or none-of-the-above. -Animalparty (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's English language that is responsible for your difficulty in following my point. For example, in Russian, instead of two words spring ability, we have just one word прыгучесть which, without any exception, should be applied to creatures only in order to describe their jumping capacity with the help of muscles (no association with any springs, by the way!). Due to foregoing and taking into account your concerns, shall we substitute the discussed category for Category:Samples of people's jumping capacity?ShustovVal (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- The following version is, probably, better: Category:Samples of creatures' spring ability.ShustovVal (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ShustovVal: You are missing the problem here: no matter what language we use, the "ability" or "capacity" to spring is simply not a practical category. As you suggested, we could try to work around this problem by renaming the category to "Samples of creatures' spring ability", but that's just a very verbose way of saying "Jumping animals" -- a category that already exists. Unless you can explain why this category is both practical and unique, it seems clear that it should be deleted. Lambtron (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- To put it another way, ShustovVal, can you show examples of any media that shows jumping (or springing) without showing jumping ability (or spring ability)? I think an image of something jumping is by default an image of jumping ability. If all images of jumping can be placed into spring ability, then the category is redundant. Did you possibly intend Category:Spring ability to be a category for animated media such as video or animated gifs? Animalparty (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Jumping from bridges
- Category:Jumping from rocks
- Category:Diving
- Category:Parachuting
- Category:Vehicle jumping
ShustovVal (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ShustovVal: "Ability" cannot be portrayed in pictures -- it becomes evident only when exercised. Furthermore, it is only evident when seen in action (we can't know whether a photo of a jumper indicates jumping ability; we only know that the subject is airborne). Apparently your goal is to create a category that shows evidence of jumping ability, which would necessarily be limited to animations and videos. However, one of those categories already exists: Category:Jumping animations. I propose we stick with that because it does not use the problematic noun "ability" in its name. Then, when you have concisely defined the aspect of jumping animations you have in mind and fashioned it into a viable category name, you can create a subcat in Category:Jumping animations. Lambtron (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Lambtron: Jumping animations, in general, really provide a vivid evidence of the event but what shall we do with the still pictures like File:UPSTREAM FITNESS-16.jpg, File:KidsFitness.jpg, File:JonHiScissor2.JPG or File:UPSTREAM FITNESS-2.jpg which also leave no doubt of illustrating the same "jumping ability"?ShustovVal (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- An "ability" exists even when dormant. Take all of the subjects in the photos you cited and have them stand perfectly still. Now take their pictures again and file them under "jumping ability" -- because they all still have the ability to jump. Do you see the problem? Also, you've said that diving doesn't show evidence of jumping ability, but I would say that File:HALLOs 005.jpg shows evidence of jumping ability as well as any of the photos you cited. In fact, all jumping require some type of jumping ability, including jumping off rocks and bridges. Whether jumping ability is evident or not in any particular case depends on the media type and the viewer's subjectivity. You must rethink what you are trying to accomplish here and, in the meantime, we should delete this problematic category. Lambtron (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- My samples and your File:HALLOs 005.jpg may perfectly live together in the same jumping ability category. However, if you so unhappy with this category, go ahead and delete it. It's no big deal, especially, in comparison with the current attack on my uploads. My best!ShustovVal (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Scouting is always capitalized in this sense in English Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Scouting instructor rank badges of Poland for grammar and consistency with parent category. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Unclear category name, might include everything non-urban in Tajikistan and therefore be useless. FDMS 4 01:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest including the other "Rural life in" categories as well. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any others. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Recategorised and requested speedy deletion; thanks for the input! (No point in inviting the creator of the two other categories to this discussion since he/she is indefblocked.) FDMS 4 18:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
"Islamic world" is not a definable region or area (and probably for this reason doesn't have its own main category). Therefore, I suggest deleting this and the other "Islamic [W/w]orld" categories. FDMS 4 23:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Islamic world is not a definable region or area - ;) ! Thib Phil (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your link "proves" that different people associate different things (areas) with the term "Islamic world". It is not up to Commons (or Wikipedia for that matter) to decide whether or not a place lies inside an "Islamic world". FDMS 4 02:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleting per nomination. Further support here. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
There are some thousand potential mountains in that category, but the creator stopped after 2 child categories and one image. It is effort to maintain (better: still to create) and can be retrieved easily by cross-cutting Category:Alps with Category:Three-thousanders using Catscan in a much more complete fashion. As the creator did not show any willingness to complete the work started, I propose to delete this category again. Anybody who votes for keep should be willing to fill and maintain that category. Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
follow schema Category:Views from Dieteröder Klippen Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, though there are several other sub-categories of Category:Views of Landkreis Eichsfeld by viewpoint and Category:Category:Views of Thuringia by viewpoint that should be changed as well. A search for "Outlooks from" reveals 10 categories with that phrasing. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Various other categories following the "Outlooks from X" schema also moved. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Children – all media files related to children are related to "childhood" as well and vice versa. @Thib Phil: I think this might be another subject rather suitable for an overview gallery? FDMS 4 23:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree. Children are people who are experiencing childhood. Aspects of childhood such as primary school, pediatric medicine, development psychology (tjsp), history of children's clothing, etc are not children. --Pitke (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Pitke on this. His examples provide reasonable uses for this as a separate category. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
French copyright restrictions, as I understand them now, do not allow free use of images of modern buildings (no freedom of panorama). So I think all images in the main category should be deleted (some of which I uploaded myself, sorry). But possibly not the images in all subcategories. Judithcomm (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that this building is subject to copyright, and that most images of it should be nominated for deletion, but that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate reasons for this category to exist. There are sub-categories of "Events at the Palais de Tokyo" and "The Eiffel Tower from the Palais de Tokyo" and so forth, plus it catches files that might other just end up in "Buildings in Paris" and never get deleted. I've added templates to the category to discourage inappropriate uploads, but I see no reason to delete the category itself. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with what you say. All the non-free photo's have been removed by now, so let's keep the category and close this discussion. --Judithcomm (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept, with upload warning, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 20:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
On the one hand, on a large number of pictures of people, their hands are visible, so almost all the pictures of politicians could get into this category if we take it in a large sense. On the other hand, we have very few images showing only the hands of politicians. So this category does not make sense imho. Two of its subcats are also concerned: Category:Hands of Barack Obama and Category:Hands of Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama. BrightRaven (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Clearly should not be used just because hands are visible somewhere in the picture, just like when we have a picture of the whole Statue of Liberty we don't put that in the category about the torch. Neutral on keeping it as a category otherwise. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- At the moment, in most photos hands play an important role, due to gesture or point of view. Category name might be improved, but I think the category is useful.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary. Scarcley used since 2009. Image can be categorized simply in Category:Islamic prayers and the subcategory in Category:Mosques. Jonund (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
there is no definition for "historical churches"; is there only 1 historical church in Macedonia? ;) Is the category meant for "old" churches (how old?), or for no more existing churches (why not use a standard category scheme name?), or something else? Please see Historic buildings (and Former buildings) for the problem of too vague category naming. Please delete this category or rename it to a clear name. Holger1959 (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Historical churches means churches that no longer exist. And are more than one. I need more time to finish all of them.--R ašo
09:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Raso mk: if you only mean historical as "disappeared" (no more existing) and not as "old" or "historically important", a different name would be better, see the established categories e.g. Category:Destroyed churches by country (by war, by demolition etc.) or Category:Ruins of churches by country (if parts are left). Holger1959 (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes i mean as "disappeared" (Destroyed)--R ašo
Shouldn't this category be named "VUDA Parks" or "VUDA Park, Visakhapatnam"? Josve05a (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
It can be named as "VUDA Park, Visakhapatnam"--Adityamadhav83 (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- What's wrong with "VUDA Park in Visakhapatnam"? It's grammatically correct, understandable and in line with the other categories in Category:Parks in India by city. --rimshottalk 21:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, that's for "Parks in city/country" (e.g. Parks in Kolkata). If you check a second level-subcategory, you'll see "Elliot Park, Kolkata" or "Maidan, Kolkata". Josve05a (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hm, I see. I still don't think it's strictly necessary to move this category, but if it is renamed, the other park categories in Category:Parks in Visakhapatnam should be renamed as well. --rimshottalk 22:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, that's for "Parks in city/country" (e.g. Parks in Kolkata). If you check a second level-subcategory, you'll see "Elliot Park, Kolkata" or "Maidan, Kolkata". Josve05a (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I hereby suggest renaming all subcategories from [name] (tram stop) to [name] tram stop. Disambiguation brackets are generally only used to disambiguate ambiguous names, not clear object names. FDMS 4 23:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree, the real names of the stops should be clearly separated from the disambiguation which is not part of the name of the stop. When the name of the stop (or other station) is an original name, it needs not the words "tram stop" at all. However, the tram stops are usually named according to a place (street, square, neighbourhood etc.) where the stop is, that's why the name of the stop needs to be distinguished from the name of the place itself (and from bus stops, metro stations etc. of the same name). Brackets are a standard form of disambiguation for such cases. This format should be applied also to railway stations and railway stops etc. --ŠJů (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't speak Czech, but I guess that the stop names rather refer to places and sights ("next stop: Freedom Square") than the stops themselves ("next stop: The lucky tram stop"), so without the tram stops, it wouldn't be clear that the category is related to a tram stop. Disambiguation brackets are used when it would be clear what the category name is referring to if there wasn't another object with the same name. It is true that Category:Train stations in Prague uses a similar scheme, but outside the Czech Republic, I have never seen such category names before. Commons and the English Wikipedia both generally use [object name] [object kind] because that is also how stops are usually being referred to in conversations – for example, you wouldn't use "I'm waiting at Muzeum", but "I'm waiting at the Muzeum tram stop". Also, following your argumentation, this main category would have to be called Prague (tram stops) … FDMS 4 23:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Generally, for common (descriptive) names of unnamed subjects (or for generally defined group of subjects), the preposition construction in English is more suitable – Post office in Lhota, Pond in Vyšné Hágy, Fire station in Hrdlořezy – while for codified proper names, the exact original form in the original language should be preferred. We can be aware that some types of names (descriptive names of organizations, names of churches by patrocinium etc.) are a boundary form betweeen apelativum and proprium - however, personal names, street names or station names are defined and codified exactly in developed countries nowadays. Brackets are the standard form for disambiguation of more subjects of the same name by kind of the subject. As I can see, some countries have more problems with adherence to the main Commons naming conventions (common names in English etc.) but even though it is tolerated (because there is no power to enforce such a mass fixing), it should be not advised and followed as examples by other countries.
I agree that there can be difficult to choose the most convenient form for some types of subjects. However, the English form [object name] [object kind] is problematic by several reasons:
- it is not able to distinguish whether the "object kind" words are part of the name itself (which occurs in train station names, street names, creek names etc.)
- it is confusable with adjective form like [object location] [object kind] (there are many "Kobylisy tram stops" in Kobylisy but only one pair of them is named "Kobylisy").
- in some cases, the combination of the name in original language with the English preposition bond and English common term can cause grammar nonsenses, inconsistencies, cross-language redundancies etc. (such a problem we have with creek names etc.).
Your last argument about the main category (that it should be named "Prague (tram stops)") is quite nonsensical and seems to indicate that you didn't understand the problem actually. There is a principal distinction between a category for a group of subjects (such a category have a common character allways) and a category for an individual subject which have its proper name. Prague is not a name of any tram stop in Prague. However, this is a good example which can clarify the distinction. "Kobylisy tram stops" could be a gramatically correct (but ambiguous!) name for the category of all ca 30 tram stops in the whole Kobylisy neighbourhood (however, the preferred form at Commons is "Tram stops in Kobylisy"). On the other hand, "Kobylisy (tram stops)" could be a suitable (and unambiguous) name for the group of tram stops which are actually named "Kobylisy", even though they can be placed a bit outside Kobylisy cadastral area (as Zličín metro station and bus terminal is not in Zličín area but in Třebonice area). --ŠJů (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think I do understand your reasons for opposing this proposal (now). However:
- if it's part of the name itself it's usually capitalised
- object kinds should be singular whereever possible – a tram stop can have a lot of platforms
- I am not aware of frequent grammar nonsenses, inconsistencies, cross-language redundancies etc. with this scheme
- Let's wait for third opinions. You are right that for example in Germany and Austria, most train station categories are wrongly named Bahnhof [name], but internationally, when station names are in English, they usually have a name following one of the following schemes: [name] train station, [name] railway station (wrong) or [name] Railway Station (even worse, unless proper name). FDMS 4 12:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Many non-English languages capitalize only the first word of the multiword proper name (and included proper names also). Czech language capitalizes all words only in names of settlement places (cities, villages etc.). Let's use a simple rule: the category name is a name of the subject, and a disambiguation (if needed) is used as a disambiguation.
- Strictly speaking, the Czech technical and legal terminology considers every "platform" as separate tram stop or bus stop. So typically, the stop name belong to pair or group of stops. However, in popular language, a whole pair or group of stops is understood as one "zastávka" together, and we decided to apply this interpretation, to consider a whole group of stops of identic name as one stop together, using singular. However, such a category is a category of one subject with one proper name, even though the subject consits of separable elements - e. g. "Kobylisy (tram stop)". It needs to be distinguished from category for a group or class of subjects - "Tram stops in Kobylisy", independently on the fact how many subjects are really included.
- In case of street names or square names, we need to distinguish exactly where the common word is part of the official name (even thought it need not to be capitalized) and where it isn't. E.g., There exist "třída Míru" or "Třída Míru" in Pardubice, Beroun and Český Krumlov but "Míru" street in Děčín, Třinec, Frýdek-Místek and other cities. In modern times, official proper names of places, people or organizations are used as exact identifiers, not as an informal dedication of variable form. --ŠJů (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, let's not use that simple rule, per the reasons given. Let's do use the "international" definition of tram stop, I guess also used in Prague's tram network maps (or do they say • … tram stops?). At least in Vienna, stop names are never translated, so I'm fine with using the Czech words for street/road/square etc.. FDMS 4 21:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Let's keep that simple rule: the official name of the stop (in original language) as the base of the category name, and dissambiguation (in English or with other original proper names) in brackets. Such a format is ideal for subjects which have their official and codified proper names. Very simple and understandable system, recommended for other items and countries too. --ŠJů (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, let's not use that simple rule, per the reasons given. Let's do use the "international" definition of tram stop, I guess also used in Prague's tram network maps (or do they say • … tram stops?). At least in Vienna, stop names are never translated, so I'm fine with using the Czech words for street/road/square etc.. FDMS 4 21:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Does not fit in our history category scheme. How are the contents of this category more related to the "1920s way of life" that anything else in Category:1920s? FDMS 4 23:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- i see the same problem. The gallery 1920s way of life is ok (and a nice idea i think), but the category with the same name is redundant to the already existing category scheme (and "way of life" is a very vague term, it can include nearly everything). Holger1959 (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi folks ! Do you thing it would be more interesting to replace the "way of life cats" by thematic galleries/pages ? Thib Phil (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Thib Phil: definitly! i don't know much about our contents for "way of life" and decades, but such galleries could be very helpful as an overview with a selection of good images per subtopic and with links to relevant categories, so that users better find their way around through our category scheme. The goal then, of course, should be to create similar galleries for all decades (at least for the more recent ones), not only for the 1920s. Maybe you can also establish a kind of "standard" for these galleries? With standard i mean, we have some "inofficial standards" for several types of galleries – similar structure of contents for related galleries: special introduction templates/texts, special order of images and sections etc. See eg. Vanellus vanellus or Calendula officinalis for animals/plants galleries, see Claude Monet for painter galleries, or browse some location galleries (cities and towns etc, standards differ a bit by country) or geography/maps galleries. There are already some nice galleries for years and for specific days/dates. But i did not find an other example for "way of life" per decade.
- For links to categories maybe you find {{Cat see also}} helpful? I used it in some galleries like Timber framing, Timber-framed building, Timber framed house.
- For the gallery 1920s way of life i think All caps should not be used in headings, and i would prefer a bit different order with general subtopic sections like childhood, fashion, transport etc. above the "by country" sections. And i think a general name like "1920s way of life" should also include life in non-western world countries (= not only Occident, in its broad meaning). But that is only my view. Holger1959 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC); reworded Holger1959 (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Second that. FDMS 4 00:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Holger1959 - I intended to also study the way of life in other historical civilizations - see Category:Way of life in ancient Asia. I especially prized and favoured the use of paintings as illustration as paintings were not only oeuvres d'art but also pictorial documents of a period before the invention of the photography Thib Phil (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Second that. FDMS 4 00:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi folks ! Do you thing it would be more interesting to replace the "way of life cats" by thematic galleries/pages ? Thib Phil (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Since the contents of the category aren't clearly defined, and there doesn't seem to be any support for keeping it, I'll merge it into Category:1920s. --ghouston (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
This category is named correctly, but most of the subcategories need to be renamed from "X in countries" to "X by country" in accordance to our normal procedure. It is a massive change and just creating the bot move commands would be a task for a bot. Please note: there are so dang many subcategories that I will not even think about tagging every one of them, just a few for example. --Pitke (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Can you give some more examples, please? I'm trying to see what you mean.
- As an aside, editors please note, that cultivated plants are not part of a nation's flora (only native species, and established / invasive alien plants); images of plants in gardens should not be put in these flora categories. I see far too many pics which have been wrongly categorised so. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Aha, it seems someone's been sorting stuff here. Most family cats were sorted by order. Here are some sub and subsub cats: Category:Boraginaceae in countries, Category:Sphagnaceae in countries, Category:Vitales in countries, Category:Solanaceae in countries. For more, see categories under any "Flora by taxon by country ($ORDER)" cat. --Pitke (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@Pitke and MPF: The top levels of these categories were corrected now, together with some other anomalies of the categorization structure. For the remaining hundreds of subcategories, a bot work request was made. --ŠJů (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Pitke (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: Am I correct that this is now done and discussion can be closed? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I suppose, it's corrected now. If some cases were forgotten, they can be corrected promptly without continuing this CfD. There was no opposition toward the correction. --ŠJů (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Done on 25 December 2016, ca 216 categories moved by bot, see Commons:Bots/Work requests/Archive 12#Replace "in countries" with "by country". --ŠJů (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. as per above in December 2016. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there any special need for this category which has only one file? Muzammil (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Only if it has {{Authority control}} or a {{Creator}} template, which is not the case, therefor no reason in my point of view.
"Narendra Modi by MONTH of YEAR" is quite unnecessary subcategory of Category:Narendra Modi by year. I see no distinctive reason to split the year 2013 of his life into months. The categories should help in surfing of images. This only complicates the image surfing process. Hence requesting to upmerge the category back into Category:Narendra Modi in 2013. Also nominating following listed categories for same reason.
- Category:Narendra Modi in August 2013
- Category:Narendra Modi in September 2013
- Category:Narendra Modi in October 2013
- Category:Narendra Modi in November 2013
- Category:Narendra Modi in December 2013
- §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I got the by month idea from Category:Vladimir Putin by year. Modi's 2013 category has about 150 images which may not be a lot, but Category:Narendra Modi in 2014 has 428 images right now, with about 2 months still left in the year. It seemed to me that breaking that category into subcategories would be helpful, although I have no objection if others feel that a single category is enough for the entire year. Co9man (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed the Putin categories. When people, or at least i, surf the categories, i am looking for a image that describes well a situation. In such condition, a person in a particular month doesn't really matter. As a matter, the person in a year is also hardly useful. While your concern of crowding of a category is quite valid, some different defining factors should be thought of to split the images. If you agree we can take up this discussion on a larger forum. This should eventually affect many more categories than just Modi's and hence its better to get opinion of many other editors. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in replying. I am fine if you want to discuss this elsewhere. Co9man (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed the Putin categories. When people, or at least i, surf the categories, i am looking for a image that describes well a situation. In such condition, a person in a particular month doesn't really matter. As a matter, the person in a year is also hardly useful. While your concern of crowding of a category is quite valid, some different defining factors should be thought of to split the images. If you agree we can take up this discussion on a larger forum. This should eventually affect many more categories than just Modi's and hence its better to get opinion of many other editors. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- At this moment the six cats add up to 156 files. I tend to support keeping the categories.--Roy17 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Can we please start a standard for categories about matches to be named: "TEAM A - TEAM B, YEAR" or "TEAM A - TEAM B, YYYY-MM-DD". (So, this discussion is about re-naming the subcategories) Josve05a (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Josve05a: I don't disagree with your idea, but in 5 years, you have received no response. Perhaps you can take this to the Commons:Village Pump and we can close this discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Josve05a and Themightyquill: Agreed, and it sounds like this applies to a lot more than just Sweden in 2014. I don't know of a standard for sports events off hand. I know that many sports have certain conventions on how matches are listed. Josh (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)