Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2012/12
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 2012
»Mike beckwith 208.54.39.227 03:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Why? --Avenue (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Speedy keep. No reason given, this category serves a legitimate purpose. Also tagged with {{Empty category}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Purpose of this category is unclear. – Wdchk (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, as empty. --rimshottalk 20:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
This is the same subject as Category:Diseases and disorders due to viruses and Category:Viral diseases. I propose that the contents all be merged to Category:Diseases and disorders due to viruses. (As a temporary measure, I have moved these two "viral" cats into the tree under diseases and disorders, so they can be found by people looking for them.) --WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the merger and have moved the files accordingly. Instead of deleting this one, however, I would prefer to have a category redirect (just set one up), since this category's name is based on keywords frequently used at PubMed and thus likely to be populated on a regular basis by the Open Access Media Importer. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I also support having a redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept as a redirect. --rimshottalk 01:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
This is the same subject as Category:Diseases and disorders due to viruses and Category:Viral infections. I propose that the contents all be merged to Category:Diseases and disorders due to viruses. (As a temporary measure, I have moved these two "viral" cats into the tree under diseases and disorders, so they can be found by people looking for them.) Also, is there a bot that could easily move the ~65 images out of each of these two "viral" categories? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the merger and have moved the files accordingly. Instead of deleting this one, however, I would prefer to have a category redirect (just set one up), since this category's name is based on keywords frequently used at PubMed and thus likely to be populated on a regular basis by the Open Access Media Importer. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I also believe a redirect would be the best approach and very helpful to users. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept as a redirect. --rimshottalk 01:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I Don't Remove Firzafp (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Could you rephrase the question? Incidentally, there are a number of empty categories in Category:Palembang by year. --rimshottalk 07:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted the empty categories. --rimshottalk 09:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Wrong language; Category:Ponds already exists; wrong categorization — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydro (talk • contribs) 16:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 15:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Association football team buses in the United Kingdom. Froztbyte (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:FC Chornomorets Odessa. Froztbyte (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:FC Chornomorets Odessa. --rimshottalk 09:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you please delete this cat, it is empty. (The contents have been moved to a new subcat with more appropriate name: Cat:Blindfold chess.) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 15:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of category "Canals in Rotterdam" ErickAgain 09:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate of Category:Canals in Rotterdam. --rimshottalk 07:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Denmark women's national football team. Froztbyte (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 07:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Should be renamed to "Category:South African Zwillinge (0-6-0T)" since the Zwillinge locomotive was never classified by the SAR. The main Wikipedia article was already renamed to South African Zwillinge 0-6-0T. André Kritzinger (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:South African Zwillinge (0-6-0T). --rimshottalk 20:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Nicolai Stokholm. Froztbyte (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Redirected to Category:Nicolai Stokholm -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Coaches of Roda JC. Froztbyte (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. Improperly named . -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Skovlunde Idrætsforening. Froztbyte (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Skovlunde Idrætsforening. --rimshottalk 20:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Jesper Håkansson. Froztbyte (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Added tag {{Category redirect}} -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Players of Store Restrup IF. Froztbyte (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Players of Store Restrup IF. --rimshottalk 20:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Coaches of Hobro Idræts Klub. Froztbyte (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Coaches of Hobro Idræts Klub. --rimshottalk 20:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Vague name, maybe Student Activities Center (UCLA) or something like that Mjrmtg (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Support: Probably not even a controversial move, since it's so obvious that buildings at so many different schools in the world have an identical name. ("Student Activities Center" -UCLA shows 5 non-UCLA images right off the bat that are already on Commons.)
Moved to Category:Student Activities Center, UCLA. --rimshottalk 09:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
May be deleted since contents were recategorised to Category:South African Harbour locomotives (0-4-0ST) and Category:South African Harbour locomotives (0-4-0T). André Kritzinger (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:South African Harbour locomotives (0-4-0ST). --rimshottalk 20:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Empty category, i made a wrong edit Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, author request. --rimshottalk 07:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Could you please delete this cat, it is empty and importantly, it is double of Category:Indole acetic acid, the content was populated by videos uploaded automatically from PubMed by a bot and have been moved to a appropriate cats with more. Also sorry In a meantime I started posted a question on talk page of a cat too, coul You please delete it too? Thank you Reo On (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think we should leave the category redirect in place, since both spelling variants are common. This way, whatever comes in at Category:Indoleacetic acids will be transferred to Category:Indole acetic acid automatically. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, OK. :) {Reo On (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Left as redirect, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 17:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Players of Wolverhampton Wanderers FC. Froztbyte (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Players of Wolverhampton Wanderers FC. --rimshottalk 09:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Probably should be deleted because it is an ambiguous inaccurate category: It could mean Category:Spago West Hollywood (on Sunset Strip) or Spago Beverly Hills (which has no Commons media yet), neither of which are in the city limits of Los Angeles. Closeapple (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fine. Though I think there should be some sort of subcats for "Spago", since multiple locations, and it would be good to categorize relevant media a bit more specifically than "restaurants in the United States". -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, misnamed category; contents moved to properly named category.-- Infrogmation (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Players of Helsingborgs IF. Froztbyte (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Players of Helsingborgs IF. --rimshottalk 20:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
May be deleted, replaced by Category:South African Class 17 (4-8-0TT) - both files have already been recategorised. André Kritzinger (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:South African Class 17 (4-8-0TT). --rimshottalk 20:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
May be deleted. Already replaced by Category:South African Class 13 (4-8-0TT) and both content files already recategorised. André Kritzinger (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:South African Class 13 (4-8-0TT). --rimshottalk 20:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
to delete, the historic buildings are replaced by the actual Category:Akademie für Lehrerfortbildung und Personalführung (Dillingen an der Donau) GFreihalter (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Priesterseminar St. Hieronymus (Augsburg). --rimshottalk 20:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Was unsure how to name this page. It is the Walker Theatre National Historic Site of Canada, but it is also the Burton Cummings Theatre for the Performing Arts. Which would take precedence, its National Historic Site name, or the (very large and green) sign on the front of the building (ie. what it is now)? Fungus Guy (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- My feeling is that as the name with much greater longevity, "Walker Theatre" should take precedence. Otherwise we'd just have to rename it again when some new owner (or the existing one looking to refresh it) changes the name again. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not fussed either way, but we should create a redirect for the name not used. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done and done. Category redirect Category:Burton Cummings Theatre. Fungus Guy (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept, good name as per discussion. --rimshottalk 23:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:FC Helsingør due to a name change. Froztbyte (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:FC Helsingør. --rimshottalk 23:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Ambiguous name. "Ambel (Isère)" or "Ambel, Isère" should be preferable (only one link from fr.WP) Fr.Latreille (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- What are other occurrences of "Ambel"? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Ambel (Isère). --rimshottalk 23:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
My mistake, sorry Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty, author request. --rimshottalk 23:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
|
What leads people to adding pictures like File:Bfantasmi2.jpg and File:Cepaea nemoralis (Linné, 1758) (4426865585).jpg to this category? Does it maybe have to be renamed in order to only represent this personification? Please also consider Category:Germania (personification), of which I don't know what purpose it serves. --Flominator (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- These may be automatically added categories. In case of the snail, it was part of the description. For some reason, "Germania" was used instead of "Germany" to describe the place where it was found. The uploader obviously didn't bother to clean up the categories afterwards. --rimshottalk 17:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have cleaned up the bugs and snails and a number of other images. The movie screenshots have been deleted. To prevent further misuse of this category, I think it should be merged to Category:Germania (personification) and left as a disambiguation page. If there are no objections I will make that change in a few days. --rimshottalk 11:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have cleaned up the remaining "wrong" pictures and requested the others to be moved. --Flominator (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Emptied and made into a disambiguation page. --rimshottalk 00:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 23:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Move contents to Category:Flooding of the Lake Champlain basin and Richelieu River in 2011 re Commons:Naming_categories#Language--KTo288 (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I see no particular reason for this move as this event is mostly in a French speeking region. Pierre cb (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Also, fr:Inondations du bassin du lac Champlain et de la rivière Richelieu en 2011 is a much more extensive article than en:2011 Lake Champlain and Richelieu River floods, and "consensus for global policy isn't achieved yet" for anglicizing category names. Fungus Guy (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Come'on, lets be serious. So we could use Chinese names for things in Category:Chinatown, Toronto. --Foroa (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Also, fr:Inondations du bassin du lac Champlain et de la rivière Richelieu en 2011 is a much more extensive article than en:2011 Lake Champlain and Richelieu River floods, and "consensus for global policy isn't achieved yet" for anglicizing category names. Fungus Guy (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The French cat is now the redirect. Policy is pretty clear on this; currently the category tree can only be browsed in English. // moogsi(blah) 15:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
delete - empty duplicate of Category:Google Art Project works by Oscar Gustav Rejlander Retired electrician (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- and please rename to Category:Google Art Project works by Oscar Gustav Rejlander to Category:Google Art Project works by Oscar Gustave Rejlander (Gustave, not Gustav) Retired electrician (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Both requests look completely uncontroversial to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't delete Google Art Project categories while I'm still doing the upload. They may be recreated. Use {{Catredirect}} instead. I did the rename. Note that "Gustav" is used in some language projects, e.g. es:Oscar Gustav Rejlander. Not sure if this is an error or an alternate transliteration or what. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Empty category Torsch (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Rename to "Gear shift patterns" (which is what it contains). "Gear stcks" and "Gear levers" we already have as duplicates. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like an obvious improvement to me, just go ahead and move the files. --rimshottalk 15:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
How are big breasts defined? Does this category makes sense? Friechtle (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is a medical term for bosoms that are large enough that they cause medical problems -- like back strain. In the ideal world we would have dry clinical pictures in a category named for this medical term.
The images currently in this category all seem to be entertainers. It is quite likely that rather than having a medical condition from which they might consider surgical relief, they are proud owners of what Penn Gilette called "after market bosoms", and thus wouldn't qualify for the grouping I suggested above. Geo Swan (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Really, is this a medical term? We have Category:Hypertrophy of breast. I think this should be then a subcategory of Category:Women with big breasts, right? And what about Category:Christina Hendricks or Category:Kat Dennings? I think this category should be deleted as there can't be a general agreement of what makes a breast big or not. Also it is a little bit sexist I think because there are no other categories like Category:Women with small breasts and Category:Women with medium breasts. The only usage in this category I see, is for people that like big breasts. But that has no encyclopedic background. So I think this category should be deleted.--Friechtle (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe we should just redirect the big breast category to the Hypertrophy category? That way, both sides are happy. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- It could be argued that the opposite of `big breasts` are normal sized breasts, and that it would be odd to have a Category:Women with normal sized breasts.
- With regard to Category:Christina Hendricks and Category:Kat Dennings -- you expose a weakness of the whole system of regular contributors using categories to classify stuff. The (missing) feature we should have for classifying stuff would (1) provide a place for an explanation as to why the element belongs in the category; (2) the replacement for categories should enable a record of what elements it had once contained. I strongly suspect that when categories were added, they were seen as a tool for the software maintainers and developers, one which regular contributors and readers would never notice.
- With regard to the size of Ms Hendricks's bosoms -- journalists and other commentators (ie not fanboys) have commented on the size of her bosoms. So it is documentable, and thus, I suggest, in scope. Geo Swan (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Really, is this a medical term? We have Category:Hypertrophy of breast. I think this should be then a subcategory of Category:Women with big breasts, right? And what about Category:Christina Hendricks or Category:Kat Dennings? I think this category should be deleted as there can't be a general agreement of what makes a breast big or not. Also it is a little bit sexist I think because there are no other categories like Category:Women with small breasts and Category:Women with medium breasts. The only usage in this category I see, is for people that like big breasts. But that has no encyclopedic background. So I think this category should be deleted.--Friechtle (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete as above. Yann (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: This category does not make sense - the discussion points it out quite clearly. --High Contrast (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Players of IF Hjorten. Froztbyte (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Players of IF Hjorten. --rimshottalk 19:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Move to Port Louis Harbour
- Sorry, no discussion for this category, it was for Category:Port Louis (harbour), it can be close.Kingroyos (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Nothing done, as per nominator's request. --rimshottalk 19:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Every image in this category is a hoax; see this AFD TenPoundHammer (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It is not clear for what purpose this category is intended: identification during pass port controls, identification of animal species, ... . It seems that most entries have ben categorized into this category by a bot. Torsch (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is a mess as it stands now. So, I think can be deleted without any further delay. 更迅速 (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted. 8 months and no objections. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
_(4426865585).jpg){kind=link}
I raised a bug report here to have this category re-done by upload month and year, so that it would be easier to navigate files and the like. But looking at Riilke's comments there, at the moment all this category demonstrates that Commons can handle large categories. So in aid of this bugzilla request, I suggest that we either delete the category or have it split it up into month and year subcategories, and have developers implement those changes at the earliest possibility. russavia (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone can point out why this category is still useful. Multichill (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Multichill. --A.Savin 10:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, no longer useful. Kaldari (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Question I wonder if anyone uses it for category intersections or similar? Browsing is not the only way of using a category. --99of9 (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Many things rely on this category, including (if I remember correctly) WikiStats and anyone debugging UploadWizard. --Nemo 11:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep then (but I'm also fine with Jarekt's suggestion below). --99of9 (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Many things rely on this category, including (if I remember correctly) WikiStats and anyone debugging UploadWizard. --Nemo 11:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete superfluous and irritating during maintance work. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Multichill. - Jmabel ! talk 19:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep until it is investigated and found that it is not used for tech. reasons, scripts, etc. as stated in comments above. If we do delete it and it makes a big mess it will be irreversable I assume.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep until there is a suitable replacement for tracking basic stats about upload provenance. This category was not only implemented to track down bugs from the UploadWizard, but also to get basic stats about how many files are uploaded with it. It was never meant for browsing. AFAIK there is currently no other way besides categories to know whether a file was uploaded using Special:Upload, UploadWizard, a mobile app, a third-party app using the API, etc (or at least, there wasn't one when UploadWizard was implemented). If there is now a better way to do that, I'm fine with transitioning to it, but until then the category provides unique information. I don't see a reason to delete it, or to split it by month, for that matter. guillom 14:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. As noted above, this category is used for statistical purposes. For example, the "Upload activity levels" table here checks for the existence of this category and would immediately break. Splitting by month/year would needlessly complicate statistical analysis.--Eloquence (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have run into problems adding maintenance categories to templates that others found distracting. After some talk consensus was reached that a better way to track thing is though Category:Empty tag templates, which can be easily intersected with categories through tools like CarScan and CatScan2. May be blank template {{Uploaded with UploadWizard}} would be a less visible option for tracking? --Jarekt (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm also fine with this method. --99of9 (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have run into problems adding maintenance categories to templates that others found distracting. After some talk consensus was reached that a better way to track thing is though Category:Empty tag templates, which can be easily intersected with categories through tools like CarScan and CatScan2. May be blank template {{Uploaded with UploadWizard}} would be a less visible option for tracking? --Jarekt (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Tendentially keep because, as Guillom pointed out, this category is of no use for manual exploration (like ie browsing), but useful for analisys. Unless of course there's a better way for analyzing uploads made through Wizard. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep; category is used for statistical purposes. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - meaningless category Rauenstein 21:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - Useless and irritating. Categories should not be statistical tools, I guess there are better ways. --Indeedous (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's useless; people have explained above how it's used. There are tons of maintenance and meta categories on Commons, and the classification by upload tool is just one example. I still haven't seen a good argument explaining the harm or why it's "irritating". guillom 08:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Completely useless because in the long run every file will have been edited so often that the original influence of the UploadWizard is completely gone.--Leit (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Eloquence. Recommend closing admin disregard "delete" votes that state simply that the category is useless, since Eloquence has stated clearly what its utility is. -Pete F (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete and go with Jarekt's invisible template option above. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- I really can't see the benefits of an empty-tag template over a hidden category. I can see the drawbacks, though: An empty-tag template doesn't provide a count of the files; the category does. And converting the category to a template would mean editing ~2.5 million file pages. For... what, exactly? guillom 08:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- One could simply stop gathering these statistics. We know it is very well used. -- Rillke(q?) 09:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I really can't see the benefits of an empty-tag template over a hidden category. I can see the drawbacks, though: An empty-tag template doesn't provide a count of the files; the category does. And converting the category to a template would mean editing ~2.5 million file pages. For... what, exactly? guillom 08:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- After I ran my bot over the latest uploads (see Commons:Bots/Requests/RillkeBot), I found that category removed from about 4% of the files after less than 20 days and the risk that this is done grows with the time.
- Users change it with HotCat etc. or replace the file description page completely.
- This is not a reliable way for gathering statistics. As the risk is cumulative, it will look like UploadWizard becomes more and more popular, even without an increasing usage. Therefore I suggest stopping this measurement. Best -- Rillke(q?) 09:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Kept, actually used for something and no consensus for deletion. Multichill (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I opened the discussion about a single category but it must be meant as extended to similar ones like i.e.:that:
- Category:Former players of Stade toulousain
- Category:Current players of SU Agen
- Category:Former players of SU Agen
and so on.
Said in brief, I do not understand at all the reason of such subcategories of Players of XXX. The main reason why such subcategories are deprecated is that they are very likely to be untrue unless constantly checked to see whether one is a «current» or a «former» player of…; thus they depend on human factor which cannot always be granted.
Also, a note specific for the category subject of this discussion, and for other similar regarding the national teams: unless a player is definitely retired we could not anyway speak about «Former players of XXXX national rugby union team» because as long as they is still active they is eligible for playing for the national team, thus this category, unless it contains only retired people, is likely to be untrue. But even if it contained only names of retired sportspeople, is not of Commons' scope to distinguish between «former» and «current» whatsoever. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I created these categories so I kind of disagree :)
- These categories are useful : when you take pictures of your favorite sport team, it is very easy to identify "your" players. But knowing who the players from the other team can be very difficult; one way is to look at the already uploaded and identified pictures and compare : this process is really much more easy when you have only to look at players who are currently in the team istead of all the players who once played for a particular team. For the Stade toulousain, you have in the category "players" the current coachs of the team, which is kind of weird imho.
- These categories don't need more work than the current vanilla version with only "players"; let say player P is moving from team A to team B. With the vanilla version, you just have Category:Players of team B in one click. With the former/current version, you need one click to multicat, one click for adding Category:Current players of team B, one click for changing Category:Current players of team A to Category:Former players of team A, and one click to validate. I don't think these three more clicks are going to be sooooo painful.
- Category:Former players of national team doesn't make sens. I agree with this part :)
- Common sens should rule : of course, I do not suggest we should run a bot to cup all "players from team A" cats in "former players of A" and "current players of A" : I just say that sometimes, when we have lot of former players, it makes sens so we shouldn't delete these categories.
- Léna (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Except for national teams where I'm not sure there is a point of having such divisions, it's useful and provides information on categories like Category:Former players of SU Agen, why should we removes that ? --PierreSelim (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Lena regarding the usefulness of these categories for clubs but they are useless for national teams as there is no financial contract involving the players and their national side. Udufruduhu (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Idem :) --PierreSelim (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Lena regarding the usefulness of these categories for clubs but they are useless for national teams as there is no financial contract involving the players and their national side. Udufruduhu (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Except for national teams where I'm not sure there is a point of having such divisions, it's useful and provides information on categories like Category:Former players of SU Agen, why should we removes that ? --PierreSelim (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the main point has not been faced yet. Commons is a project with no past or present. For example Guy Novès is classified both as player and coach of Toulouse, and the thing should not be weird. The category must reflect what one is - or has been -, not when and how long. Another, not bypassable, point is that such subcategories require high maintenance: their accuracy stands in the good will of the wikipedian that keeps them updated. Once I categorize someone as Player of Stade toulousain he will always be; if I categorize someone as Current player of Stade toulousain you will always need someone who checks whether such player is still a player of Stade or less. Thus a category like Current player of... is likely to become untrue soon, or at least we cannot be sure that is true at every time, just because it has not steady ground, but temporary. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, and Player of XX is even more likely to be untrue or unaccurate... We are working on a wiki, should we remove clubs from players article on wikipedia because it's likely to become untrue ? --PierreSelim (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- That can also be true, but in such case the question would be : is playing / has he played with the club X? If so, you don't need to check again whether he doesn't play any longer there. Maintenance level is minimum in such case. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
We have Category:Naval gun turrets -- one of three basic kinds of gun turrets. We didn't have Category:Gun turrets of armoured vehicles or Category:Gun turret fortifications. I just created Category:Gun turret fortifications, and prior to replacing Category:Gun turrets in subcategories like Category:Maginot Line cloches and Category:Maginot Line turrets I thought I should pause and call for discussion. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea! Magnus242 (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, it has been six months. I moved the 100 plus images in Category:Gun turrets into one of the subcategories: Category:Naval gun turrets, Category:Aircraft gun turrets, Category:Gun turret fortifications or Category:Gun turrets of armoured vehicles. Geo Swan (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think the next passing administrator can close this discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Done as proposed. --rimshottalk 18:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
4 what we need a cat 4 this person? She is not important enough to relevant on commons Sanandros (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- There are multiple photographs of the person on the Wikimedia Commons, therefore a category would be helpful to find those aforementioned photographs. This is frequently done with countless other people and subjects with multiple media files on Commons, regardless of their "notability". Best regards, cheers! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept, no reply to objections. --rimshottalk 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Delete orphaned photos please, I prefer upload these photos to Facebook. guerreritoboy (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you want some images to be deleted, you can nominate them for deletion. In principle, what's the harm in keeping them? They can exist both here and at Facebook. --rimshottalk 07:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Not done, not really a category discussion. --rimshottalk 07:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Category:Pythagorean tiling
editI created this category as a subcategory of Category:Tessellations, in order to collect in one place images that include the Pythagorean tiling (a repeating pattern formed by two sizes of squares) and also to help put a little better structure on the many images in its parent category. User:Baelde disagrees with something about the category (perhaps related to its name? His objections come across as complete crankery to me but perhaps someone can make sense of them) and has almost completely depopulated it. A gallery of most of the images that were in the category but have been removed can be seen here, but others have been removed as well including File:A pattern of Pythagorean tiling.svg and File:A tiling and a proof of the Pythagorean theorem.svg. I would like to form a consensus on this category, so that I can settle this dispute with Baelde without continually reverting. The plausible options to me seem to be
- Keep Category:Pythagorean tiling as it is named now, with the images from the gallery, and also remove each of those images from the categories that are parents of Category:Pythagorean tiling
- Rename the category to a different name that satisfies the objections of Baelde (whatever those are), such as Category:Two-square tessellation (another name for the same pattern) and again put the images from the gallery into it
- Delete the category and move all of the images still in it now into its parents
However, I don't see the status quo (four images in the category and the rest excluded, or alternatively continued edit-warring) as tenable. My own preferred option would be the first one: keep the category at its present name, to match the name of the Wikipedia article. (BTW, this has also been discussed recently at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, from which came the suggestion to take it here instead — until we get a consensus on how to handle the categories, the user issues are difficult to resolve.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- A "Pythagorean tiling" is "a repeating pattern formed by two sizes of squares", as defined by David Eppstein. According to the current page of the category, such tilings can be a base for multiple proofs of the Pythagorean theorem. With traditional notations, here is the conclusion of the theorem: a 2 b 2 = c 2, where a, b, c are the side lengths of a right triangle, isosceles or not: a = b or a ≠ b. In any proof of the theorem through a tiling, a and b are at the same time the leg lengths of the right triangle and the sizes of the tiles: the sizes of the square elements of the tiling. And the proof also deals with the case where a = b (the case where the given triangle is isosceles). A proof with a ≠ b is not a complete proof of the theorem.
194.153.110.5 13:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)- See, this is exactly the sort of crankery I was talking about. Why do you think there is any connection at all between special cases of a proof of a theorem and how to categorize patterns? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
-
A mathematical classification must be rigorous. For example, in a context where a regular tiling of squares (where a = b) can also be called a "Pythagorean tiling", all geometric transformations that leave unchanged such a tiling compose a group which is different, depending on the number of sizes of tiles, one or two: see "Category:Wallpaper_group_p4. There is no constant definition of a "Pythagorean tiling" in mathematics, such definitions are used in specialized contexts.
A categorization of images must be understood by a general reader. A "two-square tessellation" is it necessarily periodic?
109.6.129.249 10:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)- I don't see any justification for making category names self-explanatory for the mathematically ignorant (or intentionally obtuse)) reader; for instance, we have a category "squares", not "two-dimensional things with four equal sides and four equal angles". All I want is a category that can collect images that show the (unique) pattern in which the plane is tiled by squares of two different sizes, with no two equal squares sharing a full edge. That is a perfectly rigorous definition that has nothing to do with special cases of theorems about right triangles. We need to give the category a relatively brief name, and this pattern was called "Pythagorean tiling" by Nelson, so that's the name I use. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
-
- See, this is exactly the sort of crankery I was talking about. Why do you think there is any connection at all between special cases of a proof of a theorem and how to categorize patterns? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
What were your thoughts when you created a so problematic category, I try to guess. So I ask you for this or that, in order to ponder with you.
At first, my answer to my own question: no,
a two-square tessellation is not necessarily periodic. So an image with an aperiodic tiling by squares of two sizes must be outside the "Category:Wallpaper_group_diagrams". Such an image would be outside your eventual subcategory of "Category:Wallpaper_group_p4", of which the parent is "Category:Wallpaper_group_diagrams".
I see reasons for making category names as explicit as possible. Moreover, an introduction sentence on the category page can enlighten everybody as clearly as possible. Today, someone who searches images about the "group_p4" is disappointed, because "Category:Wallpaper_group_p4" contains numerous decorative images, without any beginning of explanation about this group of geometric transformations. In the public interest, categorizations must separate images without anything about mathematics, and other images where drawings can be a base for textual explanations about a mathematical subject, clearly indicated. For example, here is an image that is currently outside the "Category:Wallpaper_group_p4". Why? I think that an introduction sentence would be usefull on the page of "Category:Wallpaper_group_p4".
To prove the Pythagorean theorem through a tiling, we don't need a tiling that covers the entire Euclidean plane. Your introduction sentence perhaps talks implicitely about a tiling by squares of two sizes, unchanged by any geometric transformation of the "group_p4"?
I try to guess what images could be stored in your category.
An infinite two-square tessellation is not necessarily periodic.
Perhaps your eventual category could be named: "Category:Two-square_tessellation_group_p4", in order to be as clear as possible for learned readers… Do you see a few problems about your eventual subcategory of "Category:Wallpaper_group_p4"?
109.6.129.249 14:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I hope this long and unreasonable comment makes it obvious to everyone else why I have brought this issue to CfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Obvious source of problems: deny that others exist, while we are on Wikimedia.
109.6.129.249 12:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Obvious source of problems: deny that others exist, while we are on Wikimedia.
 or a proof of the Pythagorean theorem. |
 Pythagorean theorem are based on a comparison of surface areas. |
 and a periodic tiling. |
| How to name such periodic tilings, it is not the only problem with this subcategory of "Category:Pythagorean theorem". I will not pretend to a false simplicity, therefore I will not vote below. It would be a bad idea to hide images about the Pythagorean theorem among numerous images more or less connected | ||
- You make a case for keeping certain images in Category:Pythagorean theorem rather than relying on the sub-category Category:Pythagorean tiling to find them (I accept that and will revisit some of my recent edits). You also make a case for changing some of the text content of some articles (though I am not qualified to comment on this point). None of that affects whether the subject of this discussion, Category:Pythagorean tiling, might be useful for other visitors, for example categories are not intended to form a rigid tree hierarchy and sometimes it is appropriate to list an image both in a category and in one or more of its sub-categories. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
NOTE: discussion of proposed changes to the lead section has been moved to a new section Lead text below
- Keep at Category:Pythagorean tiling, to match the English Wikipedia article name, and repopulate accordingly (i.e. David Eppstein's option 1 above). A Google search shows clearly that the term is frequently used to refer to this kind of tesselation, and that there are no other common competing meanings. So there is nothing wrong with the current name. --Avenue (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The description at the top of the category seems to correspond accurately with the use in cited books in the English Wikipedia article. It is quite a specific type image and yet has a large number of images in it, so it is well worth having a category and the category is of interest. Yes in mathematics one would always deal with two equal squares when dealing with two squares, however I don't see such arguments as relevant here, the category is for an interesting tiling and we are simply classifying for general use as normally done rather than trying to change the world like the Dictionnaire de l'Académie française. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep If I understand the objection aright, then something like a chequerboard tiling of squares can be seen as a Pythagorean tiling where a = b and so for the category to be a rigorous list, it needs to contain such tilings - without them it is not rigorous. I see two counter-arguments. Firstly, this can readily be accommodated by creating a category for such tilings (I think of them as quasiregular but that may not be a precise match), and then including that as a sub-category of Category:Pythagorean tiling. Even then, a category merely lists images uploaded, it is not intended to be and cannot be relied on to be a mathematically precise list of tilings, so the objection is not valid anyway. Or, do I misunderstand the objection? If so, and this can be explained, then I am open to changing my vote. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC) [update] Other objections suggest that the term "Pythagorean tiling" is not attested in the literature and/or can have different meanings in different contexts. However it is certainly attested for the current usage and, if other usages occur (as they do appear to, for example here), that just means that the Category may need some further disambiguation - and moreover could be a useful tool in disambiguating the term. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Lead text
editI propose two changes on the page "Category:Pythagorean tiling":
- adding an adjective "periodic" with a link to "Wallpaper group" on Wikipedia: …is a [[:en:Wallpaper group|periodic]] tessellation of the plane…
- replacing "…the basis for multiple proofs of…" with "…a mnemonic to prove…": …and as a mnemonic to prove…
To understand the second change, see above and another image, showing another position of the grid relative to the periodic tiling (in pure geometry, an infinite number of positions are possible).
— Baelde (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand the meaning of the word mnemonic. It usually refers to a sequence of words used to remember something. It has nothing to do with diagrams that can be used to construct proofs. As for your recent edit-warring to try to get these tilings called "jigsaw puzzles", I don't think there is much more to say than: just no. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- We use a mnemonic to help remember something. For example, see the grid shown above can help us to construct a depiction of the Pythagorean theorem through puzzle pieces. You can choose another position of the grid relative to the tiling and you construct other puzzle pieces. Anyway, an infinite tiling cannot depict or prove the Pythagorean theorem.
— Baelde (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)- Someone who has never seen such a proof of the Pythagorean theorem could use one of these tilings to construct a proof, so the tilings are not simply mnemonic (an aid to memory), and your suggested wording is therefore inaccurate. There is nothing wrong with the existing wording ("…the basis for multiple proofs of…"). Your suggestion also seems quite tangential to the main discussion here. --Avenue (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- We use a mnemonic to help remember something. For example, see the grid shown above can help us to construct a depiction of the Pythagorean theorem through puzzle pieces. You can choose another position of the grid relative to the tiling and you construct other puzzle pieces. Anyway, an infinite tiling cannot depict or prove the Pythagorean theorem.
- There is a rather complicated connection between Pythagorean tilings and partial proofs of the Pythagorean theorem with puzzle pieces, when the given triangle is not isosceles. Either we want to explain this a little in the introduction, at least with a link to "Dissection puzzle" on Wikipedia, or we decide to say nothing about the Pythagorean theorem.
— Baelde (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)- That would be going far too deep for this page, whose main function is to list images uploaded. The lead already links to the Wikipedia article of the same name and that is enough. The sentence about what these tilings are used for is perhaps also useful, but the complications certainly do not belong here. I would be open to persuasion that the sentence could go, but at the moment it does seem useful. Also Baelde, please do stop warring. We all know you mean it and I at least respect that, there is no need to keep pushing. If a rules-minded admin came across all this you would be in real trouble. Let's get any changes agreed in detail before making them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK for the link to "Pythagorean tiling" on Wikipedia, never that was disputed. And then, it seems
you prefer a brief introduction: nothing about the Pythagorean theorem in the introduction…
— Baelde (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)- Baelde, what do you mean? You link to a diff where you try to lengthen the introduction, you say "nothing about the Pythagorean theorem in the introduction…" yet the introduction does already explain what it is. Could you explain more fully what you mean? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Second possibility written above: we decide to say nothing about the Pythagorean theorem in the introduction (in my opinion, a link to "Wallpaper group" is usefull in this introduction ).
— Baelde (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)- Are you just saying again that there are only two possibilities - adding the link to wallpaper patterns or deleting all mention of the pythagorean theorem? (My apologies for keeping asking, but if the English grammar is not precise I always see so many interpretations of the text, I am unsure what is meant: I never know if the author's logic is the same as mine.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Second possibility written above: we decide to say nothing about the Pythagorean theorem in the introduction (in my opinion, a link to "Wallpaper group" is usefull in this introduction ).
- Baelde, what do you mean? You link to a diff where you try to lengthen the introduction, you say "nothing about the Pythagorean theorem in the introduction…" yet the introduction does already explain what it is. Could you explain more fully what you mean? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK for the link to "Pythagorean tiling" on Wikipedia, never that was disputed. And then, it seems
- That would be going far too deep for this page, whose main function is to list images uploaded. The lead already links to the Wikipedia article of the same name and that is enough. The sentence about what these tilings are used for is perhaps also useful, but the complications certainly do not belong here. I would be open to persuasion that the sentence could go, but at the moment it does seem useful. Also Baelde, please do stop warring. We all know you mean it and I at least respect that, there is no need to keep pushing. If a rules-minded admin came across all this you would be in real trouble. Let's get any changes agreed in detail before making them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is a rather complicated connection between Pythagorean tilings and partial proofs of the Pythagorean theorem with puzzle pieces, when the given triangle is not isosceles. Either we want to explain this a little in the introduction, at least with a link to "Dissection puzzle" on Wikipedia, or we decide to say nothing about the Pythagorean theorem.
First change: an adjective "periodic" with a link to "Wallpaper group" on Wikipedia: …is a [[:en:Wallpaper group|periodic]] tessellation of the plane… Please Steelpillow and David Eppstein, do you agree?
— Baelde (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes to the word "periodic". I don't mind much either way about a link to Wallpaper group: one is, or should be, already in the main article on Pythagorean tilings - but on the other hand it would do little harm to add it here if people feel it helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. — Baelde (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Now a comment about the current definition:
"A Pythagorean tiling is a periodic tiling of the plane by squares of two different sizes, with no two equal squares sharing a full edge".
To me, "two square tiles sharing a full edge" means "two tiles being edge-to-edge", or "two squares having a common side".
If such two squares exist in the tiling, they are necessarily equal, therefore I had not changed the meaning by removing
these two words: "two equal". However, this definition will be more clear:
A Pythagorean tiling is a periodic tiling of the plane by squares of two different sizes, with no squares edge-to-edge.
— Baelde (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Other possibility:
A Pythagorean tiling is a periodic tiling of the plane by squares of two different sizes, where two contiguous squares have no common side.
Do you prefer the last sentence?
— Baelde (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- The way I see it, phrases such as "edge-to-edge" and "a common side" are not mathematically precise. Can edge-to-edge just mean aligned for the length of the shorter edge but the longer end protruding? Where does the language (as opposed to one's interpretation) forbid it? Can a short common side be appended by an extension for one of the squares? Where does the language (as opposed to one's interpretation) forbid it? The original phrasing, "two equal squares sharing a full edge," is precise and unambiguous, so I think it should be restored. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- To me, "two equal" is unsettling in the context, as explained above.
The wiktionary gives definitions of "edge", for example.
Assume that "common side" or "edge-to-edge"
are ambiguous for a general reader, don't forget
that numerous examples of "Pythagorean tilings" are exhibited,
numerous images are classified in the category. To write a useful description
with no word "side" or "common", here is another possible lead text.A Pythagorean tiling is a periodic tiling of the plane by squares of two different sizes, where any square is surrounded by four contiguous squares of another size.
— Baelde (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- To me, "two equal" is unsettling in the context, as explained above.
- The way I see it, phrases such as "edge-to-edge" and "a common side" are not mathematically precise. Can edge-to-edge just mean aligned for the length of the shorter edge but the longer end protruding? Where does the language (as opposed to one's interpretation) forbid it? Can a short common side be appended by an extension for one of the squares? Where does the language (as opposed to one's interpretation) forbid it? The original phrasing, "two equal squares sharing a full edge," is precise and unambiguous, so I think it should be restored. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- You have explained what you prefer, but not why you find ' "two equal" is unsettling in the context.' "edge" is fine, just not "edge-to-edge"where edges may or may not be equal. Likewise, "common" is fine in the right context, just not in "common side" where sides may or may not be equal. One purpose of the lead is to explain why just these images and no other are allowed. An imprecise definition may lead to people adding the wrong kinds of image. The smaller squares are not contiguous around a larger one. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Two squares sharing a full edge are necessarily equal, yes or no?
If yes, why it would be precised "no two equal squares sharing a full edge", instead of "no squares sharing a full edge"?
If no, what does mean "sharing a full edge"? - What does mean the adjective "contiguous"?
If a square is defined as a surface, two squares are contiguous
if and only if their intersection contains more than one point and is included in one of their sides. - What does mean the category name "Category:Wallpaper group p4"?
My last description evokes an infinite number of rotations that leave unchanged a Pythagorean tiling. Perhaps you prefer the following description.A Pythagorean tiling is a periodic tiling of the plane by squares of two different sizes, where any square is contiguous to four squares of another size around it.
- Two squares sharing a full edge are necessarily equal, yes or no?
- — Baelde (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure where all these numbered points are going.
- I did not comment on "full edge". But it is not clear: can two squares of different sizes share a "full edge" of the smaller square? I don't see why not. So the wording becomes imprecise because it might mean that or it might not.
- "contigous" means that there is a boundary between the one and the other, which one may cross with no disturbance as it were. For example two lanes of a motorway are contiguous but two carriageways are not. If you say that say four things are contiguous, that means they are like four lanes of a carriageway. If you want to say that they are contiguous with a fifth thing then you need to say so explicitly. In the case of a tiling, the small squares adjacent to a larger square are not contiguous (as you wrote), but they are contiguous with the central square (which you did not write).
- I did not comment on the category you mention. Your new suggestion is not quite grammatical. I think you mean (and apologies but that yellow was horrible):
- A Pythagorean tiling is a periodic tiling of the plane by squares of two different sizes, where any square is contiguous with four squares of another size around it.
- But that is rather clumsily put. We do not usually use words like "contiguous." Worse, I can put four half-size squares "around" it, top and bottom, and add two more large squares either side. That meets your definition. So, "with no two equal squares sharing a full edge" remains precise, succinct and understandable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- We have not to imagine all what does not exist in a Pythagorean tiling. About the preposition used after "contiguous" (not "contigous"), I have sometimes read "to", but you don't like "contiguous". Perhaps everybody will be happy after reading this.
— Baelde (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- We have not to imagine all what does not exist in a Pythagorean tiling. About the preposition used after "contiguous" (not "contigous"), I have sometimes read "to", but you don't like "contiguous". Perhaps everybody will be happy after reading this.
- Well, again, the word "abuts" is not commonly usually used in these situations and your phrasing as written is not grammatical. I think it best if you leave the finer phrasing to someone who is both an experienced mathematician and a native English-speaker. I will change it back much as it was because that text was worked out by such editors and I cannot see how to improve on it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Categories
editMost images stored in "Category:Pythagorean tiling" have nothing to do with the Pythagorean theorem, no reason to see "Category:Pythagorean tiling" as a subcategory of "Category:Pythagorean theorem". I think that we have to remove "Category:Pythagorean theorem". Please Steelpillow and David Eppstein, do you agree?
— Baelde (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- If silence means consent, "Category:Pythagorean tiling" will not be a subcategory of "Category:Pythagorean theorem": we will remove "Category:Pythagorean theorem", because in general a Pythagorean tiling has nothing to do with the Pythagorean theorem.
— Baelde (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)- I agree with the removal. By my count, only 4 of the 19 images here are overtly about the Pythagorean theorem. So while the topic isn't completely unrelated, the relationship isn't tight enough to make Category:Pythagorean theorem appropriate for the full category. Of course it can be added directly to any of the images here that do relate to the theorem. --Avenue (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. In this gallery, you find images that had been stored in "Category:Pythagorean tiling",
and most of them do not deal with the Pythagorean theorem.
— Baelde (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)- Sorry, I missed your post until now. Yes, you are right to remove it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. In this gallery, you find images that had been stored in "Category:Pythagorean tiling",
- I agree with the removal. By my count, only 4 of the 19 images here are overtly about the Pythagorean theorem. So while the topic isn't completely unrelated, the relationship isn't tight enough to make Category:Pythagorean theorem appropriate for the full category. Of course it can be added directly to any of the images here that do relate to the theorem. --Avenue (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per what appears to me as consensus. --rimshottalk 14:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
We have three related categories. Category:Distributor (ship, 1908) -- a steamboat on the Skeena River, Category:Distributor (ship, 1920) -- a steamboat on the Mackenzie River, and Category:Distributor (sternwheeler). Currently, Category:Distributor (sternwheeler) redirects to Category:Distributor (ship, 1908). But Category:Distributor (ship, 1920) was also a sternwheeler, so I question whether this redirection isn't simply confusing, and a potential source of mistakes. Should it be removed? Geo Swan (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok for me. -- Docu at 17:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Look what I have made of it. --Stunteltje (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have great confidence in your judgment Stunteltje, and I am happy with your turning Category:Distributor (sternwheeler) into a disambiguation page. I'd encourage the next passing administrator to close this discussion. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Look what I have made of it. --Stunteltje (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguated –moogsi (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Currently this category has over five dozen images -- mainly with very poor indications in the image name where the canal lock exists. So I created Category:Canal locks on the Rideau Canal and Category:Canal locks on the Welland Canal. I am calling for discussion as to whether locks that are clearly on a particular canal should be moved to a specific category for locks on that canal -- leaving only unidentifiable locks in the parent category. Cheers. Geo Swan (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Right, that is the whole idea about deepening categories. Note that many canal locks are on a river (boundary) too as many rivers have parts that are managed like a canal. --Foroa (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this is standard. Keep up the good work. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Closed –moogsi (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
There may be some value to this category, but I think it's poorly named. Its name implies logos related specifically to the NCAA organization, but it actually contains logos pertaining to members of the NCAA. We already have Category:Logos of universities and colleges in the United States, so I'm not sure what purpose this one is supposed to serve. --Powers (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I followed the "idea" of how this type of logos are categorized under the Category:National Football League logos, with the only difference of using initials NCAA instead of National Collegiate Athletic Association, as the main category is Category:NCAA. The purpose to create a new category different from Category:Logos of universities and colleges in the United States was to put together the athletic programs' logos (not the same as the seals or academic logos) and to also put together those who are in the NCAA (maybe another for NAIA will have to be created). --Banderas (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is the semantics, I think. Sports programs are not members of the NCAA; entire universities are. So if you mean "athletics logos of universities and colleges in the United States", then that's what the category should say. I can't think of any good reason to separate NAIA and NCAA logos in separate categories. (And I think an argument could be made that the NFL category should be "National Football League team logos".) Powers (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
In the absence of a clear consensus, I have added a short description to the category to say what it should contain –moogsi (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The name is a trigger for confusion, I suggest it be renamed Category:Mackenzie Basin (New Zealand) -- as I am not the first person to assume it was a category for the drainage basin of the Mackenzie River -- the 2nd largest river in North America. When I opened this discussion File:Trout River rapids close to Sambaa Deh Falls Mackenzie Highway, NWT.jpg was in Category:Mackenzie Basin when it should belong in Category:Mackenzie River, or one of its subdirectories. Geo Swan (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- While I am not opposed to the idea, I suggest that discussion should happen first on en:Mackenzie Basin, and Commons then follow suit. Ingolfson (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, en:Mackenzie Basin already has a disambiguation "hatnote" informing readers that the Mackenzie River is on the other side of the world. So, could you please explain what you think shold happen at en, prior to making this change here? Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Done Moved to Category:Mackenzie Basin (New Zealand). Wieralee (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that the category "Restaurant drive-throughs" should be enough to cover this types of photos. This category is a bit confusing to me.--Ezzex (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, keep it simple.Carolus (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposing to merge and redirect to Category:School cafeterias, but I want to make sure that there isn't a regional use in which a "lunch room" is just one type of cafeteria or "cafeteria" isn't just one kind of lunch room. OK to consider these exactly the same, instead of making one a subcategory of the other? Closeapple (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think the terms mean approximately the same thing. (Cafeteria: "a lunchroom or dining hall, as in a factory, office, or school, where food is served from counters or dispensed from vending machines or where food brought from home may be eaten." Dictionary.com). (Lunchroom: "1. a room, as in a school, where light meals or snacks can be bought or where food brought from home may be eaten. 2. a luncheonette." Dictionary.com)
- Perhaps there are subtle differences. I don't a strong view either way but prefer School lunch rooms slightly as it's use seems more confined to schools. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- The main reason I chose "cafeteria" as the target is because it's the word used for the similar concept in non-school environments also, and might be more familiar to non-native English speakers. I think they are, when considered across all schools, the same term. Where I grew up in the Midwestern U.S., we used "lunchroom" in grade school (even though it was actually the gym), but in high school "cafeteria" was used a lot. (In grade school, "cafeteria" to me meant a place grown-ups went to eat. If I'd heard "cafeteria" used for a school when I was in grade school, I would have assumed it meant a lunchroom for teachers and staff.) But I was hesitant to merge without a discussion because (1) schools sometimes serve meals other than lunch now (particularly breakfast in some U.S. state), and (2) some schools now have more than one area to eat, and maybe designate the biggest one with one name or the other. However, (1) I suspect that breakfast usually gets served in the same room as lunch and that "lunchroom" could be the name for that room at any particular school; (2) I don't have any evidence that a school with multiple places to eat tends to name a "lunch room" (the main one?) as one of many "cafeterias" or tends to name a "cafeteria" (the one where the food is served from?) as one of many "lunch rooms". I think you're right that they mean the same though. For example: Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) has 4 cafeteria/lunchroom areas and distinguishes them by calling the main one the "food court" and the 3 smaller ones "commissaries": Category:Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) cafeterias (a category name I invented) has pictures. --Closeapple (talk) 09:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Merge with "School cafeterias". — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Merged and redirected to Category:School cafeterias per consensus. --Achim (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
move to Port Louis Harbour Kingroyos (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be a name, so I propose Port Louis harbour. --rimshottalk 06:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Moved as per Rimshot's suggestion. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
In general, categories for location have the format "Ships in <location>" (for events: "Ships at <event>"). Subcategories for specific ships at locations and events are not created. This makes it easier to browse ships by location/event and by name. When browsing categories for specific ships, most images can easily be found.
Images in this category were already sufficiently categorized by adding them into "SNSM at Tonnerres de Brest 2012" and "SNS 065 Jean Cam (ship, 1988)". Thus this category is not needed.
In addition, the category doesn't follow the naming convention for ship categories. -- Docu at 09:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC), edited 09:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- In this case the images of the ship are in two sequential categories. This is even not in line with the general convention. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's actually my doing. In terms of "SNS 065 Jean Cam (ship, 1988)", it doesn't matter if the images are also elsewhere, but it's probably preferable to not create "Jean Cam at Tonnerres de Brest 2012" in the first place.
- I'm aware that it's tempting to follow the general sub-sub-subcategory creation and make categories like "Side view of Jean Cam in motion at Tonnerres de Brest 2012 on July 18", but it makes the general structure more complicated to navigate. -- Docu at 10:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- My purpose when i created this category was very simple.. On one side, i want to avoid a megafull category "ships at Tonnerres de Brest 2012" with more than 15OO pictures in it, which is not usable.. and another side, i want to put the pictures of this ship in his own category.. So i decide to create a sub-category which is common to both.. in this way people who will search from one or other side will find what they want. For me, that's the purpose of categories.. finding what you want. I understand that there was not ships subcategory with "this ship at this event". The purpose of the other category "snsm at Tonnerres de Brest 2012" was to present another way to find the pictures related to this specific french organisation and will include not only pictures of boats but also pictures of people for example. I hope you may find a better way to do that than putting redondant categories ? I am open for suggestions ---Strogoff- (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Purpose 1: "put the pictures of this ship in his own category" => add to Category:SNS 065 Jean Cam (ship, 1988)
- Purpose 2: "avoid a megafull category "ships at Tonnerres de Brest 2012"" => add to "SNSM ships at Tonnerres de Brest 2012", even "SNSM at Tonnerres de Brest 2012" could do IMO.
- One could debate the 2nd purpose, as we still have an equivalent category "Tonnerres de Brest 2012 - Total" with mostly images of ships.
- Even if you add an image just to "Tonnerres de Brest 2012" and "SNS 065 Jean Cam (ship, 1988)", you could still find an image from the event (Special:Search/Tonnerres de Brest 2012 Jean Cam) and from the ship category. -- Docu at 12:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- My purpose when i created this category was very simple.. On one side, i want to avoid a megafull category "ships at Tonnerres de Brest 2012" with more than 15OO pictures in it, which is not usable.. and another side, i want to put the pictures of this ship in his own category.. So i decide to create a sub-category which is common to both.. in this way people who will search from one or other side will find what they want. For me, that's the purpose of categories.. finding what you want. I understand that there was not ships subcategory with "this ship at this event". The purpose of the other category "snsm at Tonnerres de Brest 2012" was to present another way to find the pictures related to this specific french organisation and will include not only pictures of boats but also pictures of people for example. I hope you may find a better way to do that than putting redondant categories ? I am open for suggestions ---Strogoff- (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Not done: dead discussion. Moreover, cat structure is not a problem. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Most, if not all, of the subcategories use the grammar "Category:n-meters towers", but that is grammatically incorrect. For example, Category:127-meters towers should be listed as Category:127-meter towers. Fungus Guy (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support move to proper English names like "127 meter towers" or "127-meter towers", or even "127m towers" if the spelling becomes an issue. "127-meters" as an adjective is definitely improper English. --Closeapple (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I support the move but I would prefer "127-metre towers" because it is the standard spelling in all English-speaking nations except the USA (see en:Metre#Spelling). ––Apalsola t • c 18:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd agree, but see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/09/Category:High-rises. There's a big overlap between these tower categories and the various building height categories. Perhaps they should be consolidated. ghouston (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I like the grouping of heights into 50 metre intervals. However I don't see the benefit of categories of a single metre in height. Couldn't they be deleted instead? I'd also suggest renaming the category to "Structures by height", containing "Structures of height 50-100 meters", etc. ghouston (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to rename categories like Category:15-meters towers to Category:15-meter-tall structures as part of Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/09/Category:High-rises. That way, there'll be height categories for arbitrary structures with subcategories for buildings. I don't think the "tower" categories are so useful, since most tall buildings are towers, so there's too much overlap. --ghouston (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- I also see no benefit in listing by each meter instead of by every 50 meters. ɱ (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't have bothered, but the categories have been created. For lower heights, there'd be numerous structures that could potentially go in each category. I think for a lot of the taller heights, there won't be much, if anything, in the "structures" category besides the "buildings" category. It's also a bit difficult to determine exactly what counts as a "building" vs other types of structures. e.g., water towers are not for human occupation and are probably not buildings, yet Category:Water towers has been put into Category:Water supply buildings. I'm assuming Category:Observation towers do count as buildings though. --ghouston (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It's done, the categories are now at Category:Structures by height. --ghouston (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Category:Travaux de la branche vers Vieux-Condé de la ligne B du tramway de Valenciennes en décembre 2012
editCommons categories must be in English - this is a Commons rule 88.64.113.178 14:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- C'est une règle pratique mais pas obligatoire. Ce n'est donc pas la peine encore une fois de vouloir interférer dans mon travail, alors que j'ai systématiquement refusé par le passé. C'est quand même curieux que c'est à chaque fois une IP qui lance cette procédure. Bref, va te faire foutre. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Such categories should be in English, actually. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- C'est non, et c'est non discutable, et si quelqu'un vient à en changer le nom, je ferais valoir mon droit de retrait sur toutes mes images. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment Le droit de retrait vaut uniquement dans le mois suivant le téléchargement et les catégories devraient être en anglais. Ok to change the name of the category for one in line with the guidelines. --Ruthven (msg) 10:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. Move to Category:Construction of Valenciennes tram line 2 in December 2012 and the same for all peers. Category:Inauguration de la branche vers Vieux-Condé de la ligne 2 du tramway de Valenciennes le 13 décembre 2013 can be moved to Category:Inauguration of Vieux-Condé branch of Valenciennes tram line 2 (2013-12-13). Category:Démolition du pont de la Bleuse Borne à Anzin le 2 novembre 2012 can be moved to Category:Demolition of Pont de la Bleuse-Borne, Anzin (2012-11-2) and similar for its peers. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- C'est non, et c'est non discutable, et si quelqu'un vient à en changer le nom, je ferais valoir mon droit de retrait sur toutes mes images. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Such categories should be in English, actually. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Categories moved as above. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Jim Turilli is a non-public figure, a friend of Alan Light who appears in many of the images from Light's Flickr photostream, and doesn't require a category dedicated to him. Rrburke (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment A number of photos in this category show notable people and events in addition to Turilli. If the category is deleted, images within the category should not be bulk deleted, but rather evaluated individually. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that this person does not appear to deserve a category, but that some of the images here should be kept. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm implementing an unusual (and perhaps questionable) solution here - I'm converting it to a hidden category with a hatnote and no parent categories. As a non-notable person there's no need a category in the main hierarchy; however, a sort of tracking category is useful to answer the question of "who is this guy who shows up in all these photos?". Any images that just show Turilli without any notable persons will be deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Rick Best is a non-public figure, a friend of Alan Light who appears in many of the images from Light's Flickr photostream, and doesn't require a category dedicated to him. Rrburke (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: This might end up being an unusual case because the person appears in so many photos. Though he's a non-public figure, he is identified as "Rick" in a lot of photos, and it might be useful, when categorizing Alan Light photos, to know that a "Rick" in a photo has already been accounted for as being Rick Best, rather than a yet-unidentified "Rick" that may be famous. Having a category for a friend of a photographer is unusual for Commons, but any other solution to this problem might be weird also. (Maybe a custom template to say that a named person in a photo has already been identified as a non-famous, without categorizing that person? See, that would be weird too.) --Closeapple (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete I don't think that we need a cat for him as we end up in pictures like this where Rick was cropped out. If somebody needs him you can also mark his face with a notice and write his name.--Sanandros (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Per Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/12/Category:Jim Turilli, I'm converting to a hidden tracking category and deleting any photos that only show Best. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)