Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2015/07
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 July 2015
Defination 36.252.1.188 13:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
What a silly reason... There are dozens of wikipedia articles, hence definition (if this is what you mean) is really no problem. But I'll add one in English. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Closed: Out of process scope. FDMS 4 17:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Category is not needed. 85.212.55.140 21:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Um was geht es eigentlich? Gruß aus der Eifel Caronna (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Túrelio 10 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The same as Category:Views of Nafplion from Palamidi, which I prefer as a title. C messier (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Túrelio 11 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Just a category with one user and no apparent necessity. discospinster (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's a user category, there seems nothing to be discussed further. --Achim (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept without changes. --Achim (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Merge with Category:Phosphatidylinositol, a category that already appears to be the collection of all chemicals in this class. We have virtually no images of the parent itself ("phosphatidylinositol"). Alternately, all images other than that chemical itself should be moved to the plural (the class, of which the singular is the parent). DMacks (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- @DMacks: Ok the way it is now? --Achim (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect Phosphatidylinositols to Phosphatidylinositol? That's fine with me. Commons chemical cats do not seem to be consistent about how to name a cat for a class of chemicals when there is no cat for the parent chemical itself. DMacks (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Merged Category:Phosphatidylinositols into Category:Phosphatidylinositol and put a redirect. --Achim (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
qutar974. fialm 36.252.1.186 09:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action. CfD req likely vandalism. --Achim (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Empty/unused category DAJF (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Túrelio 13 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Empty/unused category DAJF (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Túrelio 13 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Die "Category:Polymer capacitors" soll eine Untercategorie unter Category:Electrolytic capacitors" sein.Ich habe keine Ahnung, wie ich das machen muss. Danke für die Hilfe Elcap (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Elcap:
Done, in Ordnung so? --Achim (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Danke, alles ok --Elcap (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept and added parent cat by request of an inexperienced user. --Achim (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Empty category. Doctore (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Contains 2 files now. --Achim (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action. --Achim (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This category is empty and redundant to Category:Beaches of Cornwall. BethNaught (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Support, should be deleted. --Achim (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 13 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
it is empty Marcus Manilius (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree, should be deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 13 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, was my mistake, wrong name, now correct Category:Archaic Greek sculptures in Antikensammlung Berlin Marcus Manilius (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 14 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
unappropriate! Martin Sg. (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Could you be a bit more precise? What do you find inappropriate and why? --rimshottalk 21:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- sorry, that was an error. --Martin Sg. (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action due to erroneous CfD request. --Achim (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Mispelled name. The village is named Zia-Lagoudi. C messier (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed. Category can be treated as misspelled (Logoudi -> Lagoudi) as well as redundant to Category:Zia. --Achim (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Moved empty category to Category:Lagoudi which is redirecting to Category:Zia. --Achim (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
inappropriate category Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete empty Motopark (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)- Of course Delete, I think we can assume consensus to delete it speedily. --Achim (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 17 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Overly detailed categorization. Seems like all we would ever have in the strict subset of Category:Glycerol esters are the mono-, di-, and tri- subcategories (these are the only possible ways that glycerin can have carboxylic esters among its 3 positions). There are lots of other glycerol esters, including various numbers of other-than-carboxylic and various combinations of carboxylic with non-carboxylic. Having these three buried a lever deeper makes them harder to discover (one needs to know the definition of "glyceride" in order to find these three common cases). The parent cat is not very crowded, so I think it makes sense to upmerge these three. DMacks (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Upmerging to Category:Glycerol esters sounds like a good idea to me per DMacks' rationale. It's probably worth leaving {{Category redirect}} at Category:Glycerides, rather than deleting it, once the files in it are recategorized. Ed (Edgar181) 19:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- What about the other parent category of Glycerides Category:Carboxylate esters? Should the 3 *glycerides subcats get added there, too? --Achim (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that would make sense. Ed (Edgar181) 00:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. The nom'd category is an intersection, not just a definite subcat, so upmerging really goes up both parents' directions. DMacks (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that would make sense. Ed (Edgar181) 00:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- What about the other parent category of Glycerides Category:Carboxylate esters? Should the 3 *glycerides subcats get added there, too? --Achim (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Done, any objections? --Achim (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Moved 3 subcategories one level up to Category:Glycerol esters as well as to Category:Carboxylate esters and put a redirect. --Achim (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat, can be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. --Achim (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 18 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
empty category, without files, it should be deleted Duque Santiago (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 18 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
How can this images be free? Per COM:TOYS Hangsna (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. --Achim (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please tell me, why it's not free. It wa a public exhibition in Poland (there is a freedom of panorama). Klapi (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- COM:FOP says: "works that are permanently exhibited on the publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens", if this was indoors then its not FOP. /Hangsna (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of CfD scope. --Achim (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Empty, please delete Marcus Manilius (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support, should be deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 19 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Empty. The Altes Museum is a building, not a museum institution. There are no ancient egyptian papyri in the Altes Museum, they are all in the Ägyptisches Museum at Berlin Marcus Manilius (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support, should be deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 18 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
empty. The "Neues Museum" is a building, not a museum institution, the papyri are all in the Ägyptisches Museum Berlin, see Category:Ancient Egyptian papyri in the Ägyptisches Museum Berlin Marcus Manilius (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support, should be deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 18 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Empty and unused category Varnent (talk)(COI) 19:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Empty cat, can be deleted. Druschba 4 (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann 20 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
the category is empty Marcus Manilius (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I have tagged the cat with {{Empty page}}. This can be done with most empty categories to get them deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann 20 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
the category is empty Marcus Manilius (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I have tagged the cat with {{Empty page}}. This can be done with most empty categories to get them deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann 20 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Chemical elements are all-caps in formulas. Should be Category:C3H6O2. DMacks (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, but I am unsure if such a (molecular formula) category should be kept at all. In addition, the category name is very cryptic for non-chemists. --Leyo 09:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have no objection to scrapping it altogether. It does seem non-standard. DMacks (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete I don't think categorizing chemical compounds by molecular formula is a workable or useful idea. ChemNerd (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. Anyway I moved it to Category:C3H6O2. --Achim (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Achim55: Why the heck did you do it then? It's against consensus and you are not an admin, either. --Leyo 21:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Leyo, wo ist das Problem? 1. sind Umbenennen und Löschen zwei verschiedene Paar Schuhe, und ein rename tut einem delete keinen Abbruch, 2. hat sich niemand gegen ein Umbenennen ausgesprochen, 3. hättest du die Aktion revertieren können, wenn sie dir nicht gefällt, 4. könntest du als Admin die Kategorie löschen. Dann tu's doch, ich würde sie nicht vermissen. --Achim (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- What would have been the problem in just waiting for the decision and thus avoiding unnecessary edits? --Leyo 20:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- You're right, I'll slow down a bit. --Achim (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- What would have been the problem in just waiting for the decision and thus avoiding unnecessary edits? --Leyo 20:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Leyo, wo ist das Problem? 1. sind Umbenennen und Löschen zwei verschiedene Paar Schuhe, und ein rename tut einem delete keinen Abbruch, 2. hat sich niemand gegen ein Umbenennen ausgesprochen, 3. hättest du die Aktion revertieren können, wenn sie dir nicht gefällt, 4. könntest du als Admin die Kategorie löschen. Dann tu's doch, ich würde sie nicht vermissen. --Achim (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Achim55: Why the heck did you do it then? It's against consensus and you are not an admin, either. --Leyo 21:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete Agree with ChemNerd. You can't represent formulas properly anyway without subscripts, and I think this would probably be more trouble than it's worth. Should be discussed more widely before implementation. Choess (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 14:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Category should be renamed "Category:White-ground pottery in the Antikensammlung Berlin". The "Altes Museum" is not a museum, but the name of a building. The ancient pottery is in the Antikensammlung Berlin Marcus Manilius (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support, should be renamed due to category structure. --Achim (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:White-ground pottery in the Antikensammlung Berlin. --Achim (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Created to classify the single file File:TT CMZ-AF-GT E 2-1 9 53 - Rua Valsassina.jpg. "Crossrails" doesn't have a clear meaning in English; the structure depicted is a railway turnplate. --Choess (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support, should be deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Can someone explain me the sense of this category? Sanandros (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's a duplicate of Category:Magazines (artillery). The disambiguation on that category is a little confusing (perhaps to match the en-wiki article title); it says "artillery" but the description notes that these magazines store the "explosives of general or artillery ammunitions." I think the creator of this category saw "artillery" and became confused. I'd use it for any room or building used to store military ammunition in quantity, artillery or not. Choess (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- So delete Category:Magazine (Ammunition and rifles) and put the files in Category:Magazines (artillery)?--Sanandros (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Choess (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Done.--Sanandros (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Choess (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- So delete Category:Magazine (Ammunition and rifles) and put the files in Category:Magazines (artillery)?--Sanandros (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Sanandros 23 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Please delete category. There exists already the Category:Sgraffito Gedenkstätte der Opfer der Gewaltherrschaft (Lübeck, Vorwerker Friedhof) Roland.h.bueb (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, --Achim (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann 23 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
bad spelling, category with corrections created Thelmadatter (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Dschwen 26 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I could't fine any Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force but is it possible that this is the en:Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force for Crisis Response? Sanandros (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently there is no single Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force, but these joint units are created on demand. A search at the English Wikipedia returns terms like SPMAGTF-12, SPMAGTF 24, SPMAGTF-A, SPMAGTF CARRIB[ean], SPMAGTF-CR-CC, etc. I think we should recategorise these images to Category:Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces and keep collecting relevant images und sub-categories. De728631 (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK I will move the cat.--Sanandros (talk) 06:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
bonanza built by the Groot & van Vliet in 1962 86.45.79.154 13:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Bonanza is a different ship built in 1960 by De Groot & van Vliet in Slikkerveer. So there is nothing to do here. --Achim (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Closed without action due to erroneous cfd request. --Achim (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Edmund P. Giambastiani Gbawden (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'll move its one element to the main category. Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Done Geo Swan (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Category cleared and redirected by Geo Swan. --Achim (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of naming convention, content should be merged into Category:Light-emitting diodes and cat deleted afterwards. Achim (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Achim55: Achim (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)- Hola. Es una categoria provisoria. Deben ser recategorizados los archivos. La categoría vacia se elimina. Saludos.
- Hello. It is a temporary category. Files should be recategorized. The empty category is removed. Regards.--Allforrous (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Allforrous, why did you create it? Files can be assigned to appropriate categories even if they are kept in a category that doesn't exist formally. --Achim (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Dschwen 26 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Dupe of Category:Cultural heritage monuments at Goethestraße (Offenbach). Achim (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Dschwen 27 July 2015. Choess (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Dupe of Category:Cultural heritage monuments at Tulpenhofstraße (Offenbach am Main). Achim (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I´ve not seen the existing cat. New cat is now empty and redirect. Can also be deleted.--Karsten11 (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. --Achim (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 26 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Category seems to be a duplicate to Category:Prison guards: Is there any difference between a prisons gurad and a prison warden? I don´t mind which one is kept but I think we don´t need both categories. Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: guard = Wärter, warden = Direktor. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks - always nice to learn :-) I´ve cross-referenced both cats with "see also" and reverted the CfD. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alles klar, Rudolph, danke dir. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks - always nice to learn :-) I´ve cross-referenced both cats with "see also" and reverted the CfD. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action, request withdrawn. --Achim (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Wrong name, correct is Category:Symbols of Siegen. Subcategoris shall also be deleted. 79.217.142.244 17:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a mess. The whole bunch of regarding categories needs to be revisited.--Achim (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I checked the categories today and find they are well formed and logically linked. -- Maxxl² - talk 19:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Maxxl2, die Unterschiede zwischen "of Siegen", "from Siegen" und "in Siegen" sind dir aber bekannt, ja?--Achim (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)- Hab nochmal genauer hingesehen, sieht doch gar nicht so schlecht aus, wie es mir zuerst schien, sorry. --Achim (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- So, es ist offensichtlich wie bei anderen Städten auch die of-Kategorie unter der from-Kategorie angeordnet. Teilweise ergeben sich Redundanzen, aber das ist bei diesem Prinzip nicht vermeidbar, und dass diese Art von Kategorisierung sprachlich nicht gerade elegant ist, ist ein anderes Problem. Das Einzige, was hier bei konsequenter Durchführung klemmt, ist, dass Category:Symbols of Siegen keine Unterkategorie von Category:Symbols from Siegen ist. So I suggest to keep the categories as they are. And many thanks to Maxxl2. --Achim (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- I checked the categories today and find they are well formed and logically linked. -- Maxxl² - talk 19:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action. --Achim (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
has been moved Marcus Manilius (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Let's have a closer look: By now we have Category:Altes Museum (Berlin) and subcats, Category:Antikensammlung Berlin and subcats, and now your newly introduced Antikenmuseum Berlin. Doesn't seem to be the best solution so far. --Achim (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, was my mistake, wrong name, now correct Category:Archaic Greek sculptures in Antikensammlung Berlin. --Marcus Manilius (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- In my opinion Category:Archaic Greek sculptures in Antikensammlung Berlin should get moved to Category:Archaic Greek statues in the Antikensammlung Berlin as it contains statues only and is a subcat of Category:Ancient Greek statues in the Antikensammlung Berlin. --Achim (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Archaic Greek statues in the Antikensammlung Berlin. --Achim (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Belgrade Military Parade Zoupan (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should have separate categories for each parade, because in Belgrade military parade category there are photos of both Serbian police day, which I think should be separated. Also what if somebody some day upload photos from other parades in Belgrade (1985, 1975, 1970, 1965 Victory day parades; 1964, 1963, 1962, 1961, 1960, 1957, 1956, 1955, 1954, 1953, 1952, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1948, 1947, 1946, 1945 May day parades, also parades from period of Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Kingdom of Serbia). So I think we should have separated categories for each parade, both for the Police day, which is by mistake put in the Belgrade military parade category due the police is separated from military in Serbia.--Srđan Popović (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously, the police day parade should be moved, and until there are images of the historical parades, the 2014 Parade, which is the most notable, should be in one category.--Zoupan (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Of course Police Day images have to be moved to a separate category. @Srđan Popović: Which category name do you suggest? Category:2014 Belgrade Liberation Day Parade or Category:2014 Belgrade Victory Day Parade sounds good according to other categories (Category:2015 Saint Petersburg Victory Day Parade for example), but en wikipedia has en:Belgrade Military Parade. The official or usual name of this event refers to victory I think. --Achim (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- The parade was held in honor to 1944 liberation of Belgrade by Partizans and Red Army (that's why the Putin and Strizhi came), so I suggest the 2014 Belgrade Liberation Day Parade (the Victory Day Parades were held during the communist Yugoslavia on 9th May). I have created this category modeled on Moscow Victory Day parades categories. The article on en wikipedia could be renamed, due there could be also new articles about other parades held in Belgrade during it's history. Any way I am glad to see more images of both 2014 Belgrade Liberation Liberation Parade and 2015 Police day celebration. --Srđan Popović (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Category:Serbian Police Day 2015 is Done. If there are no objections I'd like to merge the content of Category:Belgrade Military Parade into Category:2014 Belgrade Liberation Day Parade as suggested by Srđan Popović and then put a redirect. --Achim (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Category:Serbian Police Day 2015 is
- The parade was held in honor to 1944 liberation of Belgrade by Partizans and Red Army (that's why the Putin and Strizhi came), so I suggest the 2014 Belgrade Liberation Day Parade (the Victory Day Parades were held during the communist Yugoslavia on 9th May). I have created this category modeled on Moscow Victory Day parades categories. The article on en wikipedia could be renamed, due there could be also new articles about other parades held in Belgrade during it's history. Any way I am glad to see more images of both 2014 Belgrade Liberation Liberation Parade and 2015 Police day celebration. --Srđan Popović (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Of course Police Day images have to be moved to a separate category. @Srđan Popović: Which category name do you suggest? Category:2014 Belgrade Liberation Day Parade or Category:2014 Belgrade Victory Day Parade sounds good according to other categories (Category:2015 Saint Petersburg Victory Day Parade for example), but en wikipedia has en:Belgrade Military Parade. The official or usual name of this event refers to victory I think. --Achim (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously, the police day parade should be moved, and until there are images of the historical parades, the 2014 Parade, which is the most notable, should be in one category.--Zoupan (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Merged content of Category:Belgrade Military Parade into Category:2014 Belgrade Liberation Day Parade with a redirect. --Achim (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the purpose of this category. As far as I can understand from the original description (the current rendition is much harder to understand), this is meant for photos taken inside National Register of Historic Places-listed buildings that show a ceiling partially obscured by another object, e.g. a ceiling light. This is a unique category, as far as I can tell, and I can't imagine any reason for anyone to use the category: who would browse the National Register category trees for images showing ceiling lights? Who would browse the ceiling lights tree for images taken in NR-listed buildings? It's a rather bizarre intersection of categories that isn't at all helpful, as far as I can tell. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, useless intersection cat, should be deleted. --Achim (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Dschwen 29 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
empty - obsolete Maxxl² - talk 10:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Dschwen 29 July 2015. --Achim (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Ich denke, diese Cat muss gelöscht werden, da sie keine Unterkat ist. Rogi (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Bitte {{SLA}} das nächste mal verwenden. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a Basque word for sheep, while we already have Sheep in the Basque Country. The files (there are only four) seem to be from Cantabria & Biscay; I‘m not sure whether to move them to the Basque cat, the Spanish cat, or both. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think moving them to Category:Sheep in the Basque Country should do it, leaving a redirect from Category:Ardiak there. --Achim (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Fine; if there are no objections in the next few days I’ll be doing that.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Done. --Achim (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fine; if there are no objections in the next few days I’ll be doing that.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Sheep in the Basque Country and set a redirect. --Achim (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be identical to Category:Wedgwood portrait medaillons Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's somewhat difficult. There are a) the person Category:Josiah Wedgwood (cat also contains some medaillons) who invented the special technique that lead to b) Category:Jasperware products like Category:Jasperware portrait medaillons and finally there is (founded by Wedgwood) c) the company Category:Josiah Wedgwood and Sons which produced Jasperware like Category:Wedgwood portrait medaillons. So it requires some thought to build or simplify a reasonable and useful category structure. --Achim (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know if there were any other manufacturers than Wedgwood, so Category:Jasperware portrait medaillons seems to be the more common name and Category:Wedgwood portrait medaillons (now a subcat) could get merged into it. --Achim (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Merged content of Category:Wedgwood portrait medaillons into Category:Jasperware portrait medaillons and put a redirect. --Achim (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Is categorization by titles allowed? This bridges don't have anything common, except names. MaxBioHazard (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is though it's not always useful. --Achim (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action. --Achim (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Doppelt. Gleich wie Category:Katholische Kirche Unserer Lieben Frau (Berneck) Schofför (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Die Korrekte Bezeichnung für das Bauwerk lautet: Katholische Pfarrkirche Unserer Lieben Frau, nach Literatur: Berneck 1100 Jahre nach der ersten Erwähnung (siehe Literaturhinweis in Berneck SG). Im übrigen verweise ich darauf dass alle Fotos in der Kategorie von mir sind, und ich als Hauptautor des genannten Artikels bin. Im weiteren werde ich den Artikel: Katholische Pfarrkirche Unserer Lieben Frau (Berneck) verfassen. Die Category:Katholische Kirche Unserer Lieben Frau (Berneck) ist überflüssig und kann entfernt werden. --Gamemaster669 (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Gamemaster669, es ist schön, dass du dich in Wikipedia und Commons engagierst. Nimm aber bitte zur Kenntnis, dass du keinerlei Sonderrechte daraus herleiten kannst, dass du der Autor oder Hauptautor eines Artikels bist. Ebensowenig kannst du ein Recht beanspruchen, allein zu entscheiden, wie die Kategorien heißen, denen du deine Fotos zuordnest. Gleichwohl sollten wir hier in der Sache (Marienkirche Berneck) zu einem Konsens kommen. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Eine Pfarrkirche ist ja an sich auch eine Kirche, und "Pfarrkirche" kein fester Teil des Namens. Von daher ist die kürzere Bezeichnung nicht weniger korrekt. In der Kulturgüterliste des Kantons St. Gallen steht "Katholische Kirche Unserer Lieben Frau" (KGS Nr. 8104). Deshalb würde ich diesen Namen vorziehen. --rimshottalk 14:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ich werde aus der Argumentation von Gamemaster669 nicht schlau. Hier oben schreibt er, dass Pfarrkirche im Namen richtig sei. Wenn ich die Versionsgeschichte der Kategorie anschaue, stelle ich fest, dass er die Kategorie am 30. Juni 2015 von Category:Kath. Kirche Berneck nach Category:Katholische Kirche Unserer Lieben Frau (Berneck) verschob, mit der Begründung „korrekter Name gemäss de:Liste der Kulturgüter in Berneck“. Gamemaster669 sortierte auch alle seine Bilder von der betreffenden Kirche in diese Kategorie ein. Er ergänzte die Kategorie am 10. Juli mit weiteren Kategorien. Am 16. Juli erstellte er die Category:Katholische Pfarrkirche Unserer Lieben Frau (Berneck), die ich tags darauf hier zur Diskussion stellte. Eigentlich würde Kath. Kirche Berneck genügen um das Lemma von einer allfälligen neuen Kategorie Evang. Kirche Berneck zu unterscheiden. Ich habe damals die Verschiebung nicht zur Diskussion gestellt, weil ich mit dem langen Namen auch leben konnte. Aber besser wären knappe Lemmas (es gibt keine andere kath. Kirche in Berneck, so eine Verwechslung auftreten könnte). Gruss --Schofför (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay das mit den Kurzen Namen hab ich erst auch versucht (daher die erste Kategorie.). Leider musste ich feststellen bei meinen Rechenchen zur Heiligkreuzkappe Berneck und zur Kaltwehkappele Berneck, das auch die Kappel Kobel und die Kapelle Büriswilen dazugehören und das Oberegg AI Kirchgemeindlich auch zu Berneck gehoren. PS: Die Kirgemeinde Berneck ist so ziemlich ie älteste in (schweizer) Rheintal --Gamemaster669 (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- @rimshot ... Ich leite überhaupt keine Sonderrechte davon ab , es ist vielmeht ein hinweis darauf das ich betreffend dieser Kirche die nötige sachkompetenz besitze. ich wollte einfaxh nich lang und breit ausführen worums geht. Was den Namen betriff, das Pfarrkirche kein bestandteil des Namens sein soll dürfte mit dem Bild widerlegt sein. --Categories for discussion/Archive/2015/07Gamemaster669 (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- 1. zur Klarstellung; die Kategorie Kath. Kirche Berneck habe ich am 24. Juni 2015 erstellt - und nicht Benutzer Gamemaster669, wie er oben behauptet. 2. Auch wenn die Katholiken aus Oberegg AI bis ins 16. Jh. zu verschiedenen Kirchgemeinden im St. Galler Rheintal gehörten, haben sie seit 1657 eine eigene Kirche und Kirchgemeinde > Kath. Kirchgemeinde Oberegg. Es gibt also auf dem Gemeindegebiet von Berneck keine zweite Kath. Kirche - alle anderen kath. Sakralbauten sind Kapellen, wie Gamemaster669 weiter oben selber schreibt. 3. Bis jetzt hat Berneck noch eine kath. Pfarrei und einen eigenen Pfarrer, darum der Name Pfarrkirche. Zur Zeit ergeht es den Katholiken in Berneck gleich wie den Reformierten und sie müssen mit anderen Pfarreien zusammentun > Evang. Kirchgemeinde Berneck-Au-Heerbrugg. In Zukunft wird die grosse Kirche in Berneck einfach noch eine von drei Kirchen in der Seelsorgeeinheit Berneck-Au-Heerbrugg sein > Seelsorgeeinheit Berneck-Au-Heerbrugg. 4. Trotz all dieser geschichtlichen Exkursen und zukünftigen Eventualitäten bin ich überzeugt, dass es für sinnvolle Lemmas der betreffenden Kategorien genügen wird, kurze Namen zu vergeben. --Schofför (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Mal zur Erinnerung: an sich sollen Kategorienamen englisch sein, also z.B. Catholic church Unserer Lieben Frau in Berneck. Wenn es in Berneck aber nur eine Kirche gibt, die so heißt, reicht auch "Unserer Lieben Frau (Berneck)", wie z.B. Category:Unserer Lieben Frauen (Holzkirchen). Der Beschreibungstext von Kategorien kann mehrsprachig sein, da könnte man also sowohl "katholische Pfarrkirche" als auch "Roman Catholic church" unterbringen. --rimshottalk 22:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- 1. Englisch ist die Category:Roman Catholic churches in the canton of St. Gallen in der die Category:Katholische Kirche Unserer Lieben Frau (Berneck) korrekt eingeordnet ist. Dort findet man aber nur selten englische Bezeichnungen für Kategorien von katholischen Kirchen des Kantons St. Gallen. 2. Es gibt in Berneck, wie ich oben bereits ausführte, nur eine kath. Kirche (alles andere sind Kapellen). Es gibt aber noch eine evangelische Kirche > Evangelisch-reformierte Kirchgemeinde Berneck-Au-Heerbrugg. Diese hat, wie bei reformierten Kirchen üblich, keinen Namen eines Heiligen. Diese wird, wenn es einmal Bilder von ihr gibt, als reformierte oder evangelische Kirche Berneck in die Category:Reformed churches in the canton of St. Gallen einsortiert. 3. Warum eigenlich ein so grosser Aufruhr? Ich hätte ja die nicht in Gebrauch befindliche Category:Katholische Pfarrkirche Unserer Lieben Frau (Berneck) statt zur Diskussion zu stellen, löschen lassen können und die Sache wäre erledigt gewesen, denn die andere Kategorie ist richtig kategorisiert und mit Koordinaten versehen. Dass sie nicht in englischer Sprache abgefasst ist, wurde, wie bei den meisten Kategorien von Kirchen im Kanton St. Gallen nicht kritisiert. --Schofför (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Vorschlag: Die Category wird englisch benannt (wie üblich), Die Kategorien die zur Disk stehen werden als Weiterleitung behalten (sofern das möglich ist). --Gamemaster669 (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ist auch nicht so der Hit. Fast alle der rund 70 Einträge sind deutschsprachig, nur 4 sind englisch. Übrigens: Wenn wir hier nicht zu Pott kommen, dann bleibt alles aus mangelndem Konsens so, wie es ist. --Achim (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Vorschlag: Die Category wird englisch benannt (wie üblich), Die Kategorien die zur Disk stehen werden als Weiterleitung behalten (sofern das möglich ist). --Gamemaster669 (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- 1. Englisch ist die Category:Roman Catholic churches in the canton of St. Gallen in der die Category:Katholische Kirche Unserer Lieben Frau (Berneck) korrekt eingeordnet ist. Dort findet man aber nur selten englische Bezeichnungen für Kategorien von katholischen Kirchen des Kantons St. Gallen. 2. Es gibt in Berneck, wie ich oben bereits ausführte, nur eine kath. Kirche (alles andere sind Kapellen). Es gibt aber noch eine evangelische Kirche > Evangelisch-reformierte Kirchgemeinde Berneck-Au-Heerbrugg. Diese hat, wie bei reformierten Kirchen üblich, keinen Namen eines Heiligen. Diese wird, wenn es einmal Bilder von ihr gibt, als reformierte oder evangelische Kirche Berneck in die Category:Reformed churches in the canton of St. Gallen einsortiert. 3. Warum eigenlich ein so grosser Aufruhr? Ich hätte ja die nicht in Gebrauch befindliche Category:Katholische Pfarrkirche Unserer Lieben Frau (Berneck) statt zur Diskussion zu stellen, löschen lassen können und die Sache wäre erledigt gewesen, denn die andere Kategorie ist richtig kategorisiert und mit Koordinaten versehen. Dass sie nicht in englischer Sprache abgefasst ist, wurde, wie bei den meisten Kategorien von Kirchen im Kanton St. Gallen nicht kritisiert. --Schofför (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Mal zur Erinnerung: an sich sollen Kategorienamen englisch sein, also z.B. Catholic church Unserer Lieben Frau in Berneck. Wenn es in Berneck aber nur eine Kirche gibt, die so heißt, reicht auch "Unserer Lieben Frau (Berneck)", wie z.B. Category:Unserer Lieben Frauen (Holzkirchen). Der Beschreibungstext von Kategorien kann mehrsprachig sein, da könnte man also sowohl "katholische Pfarrkirche" als auch "Roman Catholic church" unterbringen. --rimshottalk 22:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- 1. zur Klarstellung; die Kategorie Kath. Kirche Berneck habe ich am 24. Juni 2015 erstellt - und nicht Benutzer Gamemaster669, wie er oben behauptet. 2. Auch wenn die Katholiken aus Oberegg AI bis ins 16. Jh. zu verschiedenen Kirchgemeinden im St. Galler Rheintal gehörten, haben sie seit 1657 eine eigene Kirche und Kirchgemeinde > Kath. Kirchgemeinde Oberegg. Es gibt also auf dem Gemeindegebiet von Berneck keine zweite Kath. Kirche - alle anderen kath. Sakralbauten sind Kapellen, wie Gamemaster669 weiter oben selber schreibt. 3. Bis jetzt hat Berneck noch eine kath. Pfarrei und einen eigenen Pfarrer, darum der Name Pfarrkirche. Zur Zeit ergeht es den Katholiken in Berneck gleich wie den Reformierten und sie müssen mit anderen Pfarreien zusammentun > Evang. Kirchgemeinde Berneck-Au-Heerbrugg. In Zukunft wird die grosse Kirche in Berneck einfach noch eine von drei Kirchen in der Seelsorgeeinheit Berneck-Au-Heerbrugg sein > Seelsorgeeinheit Berneck-Au-Heerbrugg. 4. Trotz all dieser geschichtlichen Exkursen und zukünftigen Eventualitäten bin ich überzeugt, dass es für sinnvolle Lemmas der betreffenden Kategorien genügen wird, kurze Namen zu vergeben. --Schofför (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- @rimshot ... Ich leite überhaupt keine Sonderrechte davon ab , es ist vielmeht ein hinweis darauf das ich betreffend dieser Kirche die nötige sachkompetenz besitze. ich wollte einfaxh nich lang und breit ausführen worums geht. Was den Namen betriff, das Pfarrkirche kein bestandteil des Namens sein soll dürfte mit dem Bild widerlegt sein. --Categories for discussion/Archive/2015/07Gamemaster669 (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay das mit den Kurzen Namen hab ich erst auch versucht (daher die erste Kategorie.). Leider musste ich feststellen bei meinen Rechenchen zur Heiligkreuzkappe Berneck und zur Kaltwehkappele Berneck, das auch die Kappel Kobel und die Kapelle Büriswilen dazugehören und das Oberegg AI Kirchgemeindlich auch zu Berneck gehoren. PS: Die Kirgemeinde Berneck ist so ziemlich ie älteste in (schweizer) Rheintal --Gamemaster669 (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ich werde aus der Argumentation von Gamemaster669 nicht schlau. Hier oben schreibt er, dass Pfarrkirche im Namen richtig sei. Wenn ich die Versionsgeschichte der Kategorie anschaue, stelle ich fest, dass er die Kategorie am 30. Juni 2015 von Category:Kath. Kirche Berneck nach Category:Katholische Kirche Unserer Lieben Frau (Berneck) verschob, mit der Begründung „korrekter Name gemäss de:Liste der Kulturgüter in Berneck“. Gamemaster669 sortierte auch alle seine Bilder von der betreffenden Kirche in diese Kategorie ein. Er ergänzte die Kategorie am 10. Juli mit weiteren Kategorien. Am 16. Juli erstellte er die Category:Katholische Pfarrkirche Unserer Lieben Frau (Berneck), die ich tags darauf hier zur Diskussion stellte. Eigentlich würde Kath. Kirche Berneck genügen um das Lemma von einer allfälligen neuen Kategorie Evang. Kirche Berneck zu unterscheiden. Ich habe damals die Verschiebung nicht zur Diskussion gestellt, weil ich mit dem langen Namen auch leben konnte. Aber besser wären knappe Lemmas (es gibt keine andere kath. Kirche in Berneck, so eine Verwechslung auftreten könnte). Gruss --Schofför (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Eine Pfarrkirche ist ja an sich auch eine Kirche, und "Pfarrkirche" kein fester Teil des Namens. Von daher ist die kürzere Bezeichnung nicht weniger korrekt. In der Kulturgüterliste des Kantons St. Gallen steht "Katholische Kirche Unserer Lieben Frau" (KGS Nr. 8104). Deshalb würde ich diesen Namen vorziehen. --rimshottalk 14:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Gamemaster669, es ist schön, dass du dich in Wikipedia und Commons engagierst. Nimm aber bitte zur Kenntnis, dass du keinerlei Sonderrechte daraus herleiten kannst, dass du der Autor oder Hauptautor eines Artikels bist. Ebensowenig kannst du ein Recht beanspruchen, allein zu entscheiden, wie die Kategorien heißen, denen du deine Fotos zuordnest. Gleichwohl sollten wir hier in der Sache (Marienkirche Berneck) zu einem Konsens kommen. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Redirected Category:Katholische Pfarrkirche Unserer Lieben Frau (Berneck) to Category:Katholische Kirche Unserer Lieben Frau (Berneck). --Achim (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept the state due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
historic importance 94.7.163.21 22:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- What are you trying to tell us? -- Clemens 09:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action, nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
past judges 121.216.26.52 06:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Feel free to add images of judges if you like to do so. --Achim (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action, nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
While not technically wrong, the name "North River" for this stretch of the Hudson is at least obscure.
Also, while we are on this discussion: why is Category:Manhattan skylines a subcat of this category? Shouldn't we have a separate Category:Manhattan skylines from... and make that a subcat of both this category (whatever we call it) and of Category:Manhattan skylines? Many, perhaps most, Manhattan skylines have nothing to do with this stretch of water. Jmabel ! talk 22:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- There is more than one "North River", so this page should be a disambig page and the current content moved to Category:North River (Hudson River) (en). Something apparently went wrong here – ping Epicgenius. FDMS 4 23:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Category:North River should probably renamed Category:North River (Hudson River) or merged to Category:Hudson River, as few people know what North River is in this context. On a similar note, many of the images in Category:North River can be copied to Category:Manhattan skylines as well, or even moved into a new category for skylines on the Hudson River. Epic Genius (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose merging it with Category:Hudson River. That category is filled enough with photos, and it seems that due to population density, there are as many photographs of the Hudson north of the city as there are photos of it in and around the city. Differentiating between the two with these two separate categories makes everything much easier.--ɱ (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- I like Category:North River (Hudson River) - Jmabel ! talk 05:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- If no one objects in the next week or so, I will move it there. - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Request made via delinker. - Jmabel ! talk 19:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:North River (Hudson River). - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Category should be renamed so that it becomes clear what it deals with. Achim (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- CU is a Korean retail company, but a lot of images of this category refer to the University of Colorado. Images from flickr containing a tag CU are dropped here. So the category should be renamed to Category:CU (company) or something similar and Category:CU should be deleted without a redirect preventing it from getting filled up by flickr files again. --Achim (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Done: Removed 22 files off this cat and moved it to Category:CU (company). --Achim (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 8 August 2015. --Achim (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Should be deleted. Remains of a move. Thanks. Aeroid (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 23:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Empty , Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. --Achim (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann 7 August 2015. --Achim (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Suggest upmerge to Category:People of Piatt County, Illinois: Cerro Gordo, Illinois is a village of 1400 and unlikely to collect more than 1 or 2 files in the forseeable future. Closeapple (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support - If there's no justification for making a Category:Cerro Gordo, Illinois, I don't see the necessity of making a sub-category for its people. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Redirected. - 20:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Images of labels without objects, unknown to which images these labels migth belong, totally useless for Commons and Wikipedia. Category to be deleted including all images Marcus Manilius (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- User is blocked indfinitly at de:WP because working against others. Here the same. It's clearly said, why this labels actually needed. They will be deleted, when we don't need them anymore. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Now empty, deleted. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Marcus Cyron 26 October 2015. --Achim (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot. Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
This and Category:Rail infrastructure in China duplicate Category:Rail transport infrastructure by country and Category:Rail transport infrastructure in China. --Choess (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate categories, and empty categories. Redirecting Category:Rail infrastructure by country to Category:Rail transport infrastructure by country, and Category:Rail infrastructure in China to Category:Rail transport infrastructure in China. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
[And subcategories] malformed, with slash-separated hierarchy. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- See also other subcategories of Category:Arabic calligraphy. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- The style names seem correct, for the category names I suggest:
Rename Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles to Category:Arabic calligraphy styles (34 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Arabic calligraphy/Styles;Arabic calligraphy styles;r; per Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/07/Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles |
Rename Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Diwani to Category:Diwani style (25 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Diwani;Diwani style;r; per Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/07/Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles |
Rename Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Hijazi to Category:Hijazi style (18 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Hijazi;Hijazi style;r; per Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/07/Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles |
Rename Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Kufic to Category:Kufic style (208 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Kufic;Kufic style;r; per Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/07/Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles |
Rename Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Maghribi to Category:Maghribi style (25 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Maghribi;Maghribi style;r; per Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/07/Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles |
Rename Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Muhaqqaq to Category:Muhaqqaq style (56 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Muhaqqaq;Muhaqqaq style;r; per Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/07/Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles |
Rename Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Riq'a to Category:Riq'a style (263 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Riq'a;Riq'a style;r; per Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/07/Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles |
Rename Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Tawqi' to Category:Tawqi' style (10 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Tawqi';Tawqi' style;r; per Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/07/Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles |
Rename Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Thuluth to Category:Thuluth style (125 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username.Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Thuluth;Thuluth style;r; per Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/07/Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles |
- The other categories should be moved in a similar way. Feel free to propose category names. --rimshottalk 20:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. --Achim (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- The other categories should be moved in a similar way. Feel free to propose category names. --rimshottalk 20:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Rimshot: Your suggested changes seem fine to me, and there has been no opposition. I would suggest deletion rather than redirect, since it seems unlikely anyone will type in the old category names themselves. @Pigsonthewing: I'm going to nominate the other slash-separated subcategories for discussion now. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Themightyquill: Thanks for the ping, moves requested. --rimshottalk 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Renamed to Category:Arabic calligraphy styles and corresponding subcategories as per nom. --rimshottalk 13:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
There's only one city in Hardin County, and given population trends in the area, none of the county's other communities are likely to become cities any time soon. Why do we need this category? It just adds another layer of complexity; without it, Kenton would be directly in "Populated places in Hardin County, Ohio" and "Cities in Ohio", making it easier to find. It's not as if there's a systematic "Cities in [countyname] County, Ohio" for every county; only five of the state's eighty-eight counties have such a category, and all of them are rural counties with very few cities. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support Nyttend's suggestions make perfect sense to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
No apparent opposition. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Empty. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Still empty months later. Can someone please delete this category? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 22:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't these be transwiki'd along with the book they came from? (See Commons:Deletion requests/File:William Tell Told Again.djvu.) SamB (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- The illustrations are PD in the source country. The text is not. (See the linked discussion). So no. Hop on Bananas (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Kept as per Hop on Bananas. --rimshottalk 22:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Category:Formation flight by A-10 Thunderbolt II with F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon and P-51 Mustang
editUseless, too speciific. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Delete as nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, extraordinarily overspecific. I understand the thought, but this level of detail is completely unnecessary. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Josh, do you expect more than 1 image to be in that category one day? --Achim (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Achim, honestly I do not know, since I have only sorted the tip of the iceberg so far. I have already been amazed by how many images there are in cases I might previously have thought no way there would be more than one image. If there is really a need to delete this category immediately and not wait a bit to see how things sort out, then so be it, but I see no harm in giving this some time for the sorting to happen. Josh (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Common sense will tell you that it is extremely unlikely that another image with this particular and peculiar combination of planes will ever happen again. We don't create categories on the off-chance that someday another picture will show up (and, in fact, except for very special circumstances, I don't think it's generally a good idea to create a category if there aren't already at least two images to go into it). As I said, this category is much too specific, which makes it useless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Achim, honestly I do not know, since I have only sorted the tip of the iceberg so far. I have already been amazed by how many images there are in cases I might previously have thought no way there would be more than one image. If there is really a need to delete this category immediately and not wait a bit to see how things sort out, then so be it, but I see no harm in giving this some time for the sorting to happen. Josh (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Josh, do you expect more than 1 image to be in that category one day? --Achim (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- The category is now empty. I'm not sure what happened to the one file that it contained. Any reason not to delete at this point? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Not that I can see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Pinging @Joshbaumgartner: --Achim (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Not that I can see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete It is fine to delete now. Josh (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted empty category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a double categorization by "Film by year" and "Films by year". The problem is in all subcats and overcats too. Which is the better or more correct form of the name? Of course after having decided the correct name, it's necessary to gather all the different subcats.--DenghiùComm (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- They seem different to me. Category:Films by year would be for individual films by release date, but Category:Cinemas by year of photographing doesn't fit well in that category. Category:Film awards by year and Category:Film festivals by year don't exist, but certainly could. If you want, a rename to Category:Film industry by year might make sense, but Category:Film industry currently redirects to Category:Film. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know if there needs to rename one or the other category. Perhaps. Sure, what I see is that there is no difference in the contents e.g. between Category:1954 in film (subcat of Category:Film by year) and Category:1954 films (subcat of Category:Films by year). Or is there somebody who can explain me this difference? Thank you very much. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- In the case of 1954, it seems someone has mistakenly placed a great number of Indonesian films in the Category:1954 in film (I've corrected that now), but also, there isn't a lot of great content for the category otherwise. Perhaps another example, e.g. Category:2012 in film vs Category:2014 films makes the difference more obvious? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. Thank you very much for your example. Now I understand the difference. So I see that in the subcategories named in film are all kinds of subcats that we can find in mother cats like Cinema, Cinematography, Film, etc. Sure, everywhere in all mother-categories of this argument there is a terrible mess of all kinds of files; and this is due 1) to the unclear meaning of each category; 2) to the unclear category tree. It would need: first to do a great work of reorganizing of all the categories and subcategories; then on the top of each category it would be important to explain what it must exactly contain; finally, move all the files bad categorized in the right categories. But returning to our two categories that are in discussion, if you're right, it's necessary: first to clean every category "year in film" from files that are to be moved in parallel category "year films"; then (maybe) change the name of the mother category and its sub-categories in a less ambiguous name. Really a big work to do, everywhere! But who does it? I am working since weeks to put order just in the categories about Italy (Cinema of Italy, Films of Italy, Screenshoots and film stills of Italy, Film directors, actors, actresses, screenwriters, producers, etc. of Italy, Movie posters of Italy, etc. etc), and I cannot finish it. But who will do the same for the film productions of other nations? And make order and consistency in the mother cats and the category tree? Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, all "Film in YearX" categories are topped with a text that says "Events in cinema in the year X" and all "YearX films" categories are topped with "Films of the year X". I hope this is all clear now, and that this discussion can be closed. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. Thank you at all. --DenghiùComm (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, all "Film in YearX" categories are topped with a text that says "Events in cinema in the year X" and all "YearX films" categories are topped with "Films of the year X". I hope this is all clear now, and that this discussion can be closed. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. Thank you very much for your example. Now I understand the difference. So I see that in the subcategories named in film are all kinds of subcats that we can find in mother cats like Cinema, Cinematography, Film, etc. Sure, everywhere in all mother-categories of this argument there is a terrible mess of all kinds of files; and this is due 1) to the unclear meaning of each category; 2) to the unclear category tree. It would need: first to do a great work of reorganizing of all the categories and subcategories; then on the top of each category it would be important to explain what it must exactly contain; finally, move all the files bad categorized in the right categories. But returning to our two categories that are in discussion, if you're right, it's necessary: first to clean every category "year in film" from files that are to be moved in parallel category "year films"; then (maybe) change the name of the mother category and its sub-categories in a less ambiguous name. Really a big work to do, everywhere! But who does it? I am working since weeks to put order just in the categories about Italy (Cinema of Italy, Films of Italy, Screenshoots and film stills of Italy, Film directors, actors, actresses, screenwriters, producers, etc. of Italy, Movie posters of Italy, etc. etc), and I cannot finish it. But who will do the same for the film productions of other nations? And make order and consistency in the mother cats and the category tree? Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Confusion over categories resolved, though as DenghiùComm points out, the actual sorting of the contained files still needs a great deal of work. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
See Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/07/Category:Film by year --DenghiùComm (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/07/Category:Film by year - Themightyquill (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
A rather pointless category, and the single file it currently contains makes little sense at all. IMHO, the category should be deleted. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Done: as per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Converted to a cfd request from a speedy deletion request by WayneRay. His rationale was:
- The title is incomplete and vague. Should there be or is there a Cat for Locations of paintings or Painting locations used by artists etc. Is one necessary?
--Achim (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- The concept is interesting in principle. In particular for paintings of remote landscapes it might not be easy to find a photograph of the subject. For paintings of famous landmarks, this falls apart, because there are so many paintings and so many photographs for them. Also, the category would collect images of different locations, but without links to the corresponding paintings. I think the purpose would be better served by adding a link to such a photograph to the painting's category or, if it doesn't have an own category, the painting's description page. A different story would be photographs that purposefully re-create the painting, including original location and viewing angle. As these would be a special type of photograph, it would be worthwhile to have a category for them. I don't know whether we have such photographs and the category name would have to be different, too. --rimshottalk 21:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- I was thinking of a connection to the exact position that the artist had for the painting with a corresponding photograph. As you said in A different story would be photographs that purposefully re-create the painting, including original location and viewing angle. As these would be a special type of photograph, it would be worthwhile to have a category for them. The title of the above noted Category is close to the idea but as you say has to be changed as it is not grammatically correct. Either way, this Cat should be deleted. We can come up with something more exact and appropriate. WayneRay (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Done: as per discussion, only 1 file here anyway. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a useful category. Science and technology are different things: science is the accumulation of knowledge, and technology is the construction of useful items. They have different parent categories. The confusion can already be seen because "science and technology" is currently a subcategory of both science and technology. Does that mean it's the intersection of the two? However in the "by country" subcategory, the reverse applies: science by country and technology by country are subcategories. --ghouston (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's useful for the files that represent both scientific and technological stuff? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- The intersections that I can see are: 1) technology used for scientific research 2) organizations that deal with science and development of technology, including research institutes, government departments, educational institutions and museums. But these turn up as subcategories of science and technology, I'm not sure that there's any use in a top-level science and technology category. --ghouston (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Your arguments sound reasonable, but IMHO we might want to to keep this category for the stuff that can't be clearly categorized between science and technology. Though, let's hear opinions from more editors. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- We could promote this to main category under Category:Topics and put Category:Science and Category:Technology under this one.
- Otherwise we could divide each subcategory of this category between Category:Science and Category:Technology, then delete this one. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I support splitting this into two. Overlapping items can easily be categorized in both as appropriate. There are many intersections, but this is true among all of main topics. I don't see this category as any more justified than a 'Society and Culture' category. Josh (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- I wondering if we may need to keep this category for practical reasons: firstly, categories in Wikipedia are also using this name, so it's handy to give them something to link to. Secondly, there are so many such categories in Commons, that it would be an enormous job to get rid of them all. I'm thinking of withdrawing my request that they all be deleted, but instead recommend creating as many separate science and technology subcategories and moving contents to those, so that the "Science and technology" categories become mere containers. I created the first science by country category at Category:Science in the United States, together with Category:Technology in the United States, leaving Category:Science and technology in the United States largely a container. Things have changed since my previous comments here, in that Science and Technology are now subcategores of "Science and technology", so at least we can see it's the union of the two. However the parent is still a problem. Currently it's Economics, which makes no sense since Economics is a social science, so there's a category cycle. Science is a subcategory of Category:Academia, while Category:Technology is only in Category:Science and technology. Technology is partly associated with Category:Objects, for example including Category:Equipment as a subcategory, but in any case it's rather high level, and doesn't have any obvious parent category to go with Science, so I'm going to follow Daniele Pugliesi's suggestion of putting "Science and technology" under Category:Topics, for now. --ghouston (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be the best conclusion for now: 1) try to filter content from "Science and technology" to "Science" and "Technology" and their subcategories as far as possible, including in the Category:Science and technology by country categories 2) leave the "Science and technology" categories in place, even if they contain nothing except the science and technology subcategories, to link with Wikipedia categories 3) Science and technology can exist as a top-level category under Category:Topics, since it has no obvious parent. --ghouston (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
What is a "compression engine"? This is an invented neologism, not a type Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree to any change that is proposed here. I don't consider myself an authority on categorization, especially ones created 4-5 years ago. I also find it interesting that the it doesn't say when it was "created". — Ineuw talk 17:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- What's the solution? BMacZero (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: No opposition. Any thoughts on what to do here? - Themightyquill (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no such thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: No opposition. Any thoughts on what to do here? - Themightyquill (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- What's the solution? BMacZero (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: And the contents? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. ℯxplicit 07:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Post offices on the National Register of Historic Places. This nomination also applies to the seven state-level subcategories, plus any other "post office buildings" subcategories that I'm not seeing. Why do we need this weird name? Why can't it be "post offices on the NR"? Our whole tree is "Post offices", not "Post office buildings", and I can't see any reason for this category, or its subcategories, to be different. Nyttend (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support. I agree with the rationale above. Farragutful (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support. No reason to make the name more complicated than it needs to be. kennethaw88 • talk 05:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This category also applies to former post office buildings, otherwise I would be okay with the rename. ----DanTD (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- The problem being what? We have a Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places, not "House buildings", and Category:Courthouses on the National Register of Historic Places, not "Courthouse buildings", and they include former houses and former courthouses as well as current ones. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Nyttend and I see no further discussion in years. Would you like to make the changes? - Themightyquill (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Ruthven: Are you available to help with this mass move? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Done: per discussion (@Themightyquill: renaming on its way). Ruthven (msg) 19:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Commons usually does not distinguish whether an attribution is current or gone-by: If a categorization was true at one point of time it stays and doesn´t get a "former" when it changes. We don´t do that for any other political party in Germany and I think there are good reasons for not starting it. Rudolph Buch (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- We don´t do that for any other political party in Germany ... Yes - but see "Category:Former Members of ..." for partys in other stats. -- Gerold Rosenberg (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC) P.S.: See also Category:Members of Alternative für Deutschland
- @Rudolph Buch and Gerold Rosenberg: all categories with name "former members" are as follows:
- Category:Arab Air Carriers Organization (former members)
- Category:Former members of Wikimedia Ukraine
- Category:Former members of the Affiliations Committee
- Category:Former members of the CDU
- Category:Former members of the Cabinet of Ewa Kopacz at KOD-demonstration
- Category:Former members of the Children of God
- Category:Former members of the Colombian Liberal Party
- Category:Former members of the Estonian Centre Party
- Category:Former members of the Executive Council of Hong Kong
- Category:Former members of the Fidesz
- Category:Former members of the Funds Dissemination Committee
- Category:Former members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong
- Category:Former members of the MDF
- Category:Former members of the MSZMP
- Category:Former members of the MSZP
- Category:Former members of the Westboro Baptist Church
- Category:Former members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
At the moment it is easy to upmerge these categories to parent ones. Maybe in some cases the upmerging is not recommended like "Category:Former members of Wikimedia Ukraine"--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 23:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Proponowałbym usunięcie z tej kategorii wszystkich plików wielkości 320x240 px z uwagi na ich kiepską jakość, złe kadrowanie, niską użyteczność i błędną nazwę, gdyż Al. 29 Listopada to nie Trzech Wieszczówǃ Luxetowiec (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Luxetowiec: Jeśli są jakieś pliki, które powinny zostać usunięte, prosimy o wyznaczenie ich do usunięcia. Nie ma nic złego w samej kategorii. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Not done: no action required, nomination is based on files found within category. --ƏXPLICIT 23:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be cetacean (the adjective) rather than cetacea (the noun)? Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I named the category to be consistent with Category:Cetacea anatomy and its subcategories. Jarble (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it is better to use the unchanged scieific name in such categories. First it is easy, second ist is clear, as there are no such conflicts like "Means canid penis canidae penis or dog (Canis lupus familiaris) penis?" --Kersti (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Jmabel, Jarble, and Kersti Nebelsiek: what is the situation here? The name Category:Cetacea anatomy seems to be in consistent with subcategories of Category:Cetacea anatomy--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- I really don't care, though a soft redirect from the grammatically correct form would seem to me like a good idea. - Jmabel ! talk 15:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 23:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
After the description, Charts should be a subcategory of Diagrams⁉ ↔ User:Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 17:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think I clarified it by rewording the confusing part. See diff. Charts should definitely not be a subcategory of diagrams. Charts and diagrams are both very broad and general terms with many meanings in general discussion. They have both been subcategories of Category:Information graphics for a long time now, and I think that is where they should stay. And not as subcategories of each other. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay thanks for response, but in German, Charts don't exists and is nearly equal as Diagramms. And the text you removed is 1:1 from the English article… ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 13:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's confusing, because the words are used loosely with varying definitions. enwiki doesn't seem to help much: en:Diagram lists charts and graphs as different kinds of diagrams, while en:Chart starts out by saying that a chart is also called a graph, but does confirm that charts can be a kind of diagram. It also says charts can be maps, and one could ask whether maps are also diagrams. --ghouston (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Here is the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of diagram:
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diagram
- It's confusing, because the words are used loosely with varying definitions. enwiki doesn't seem to help much: en:Diagram lists charts and graphs as different kinds of diagrams, while en:Chart starts out by saying that a chart is also called a graph, but does confirm that charts can be a kind of diagram. It also says charts can be maps, and one could ask whether maps are also diagrams. --ghouston (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Okay thanks for response, but in German, Charts don't exists and is nearly equal as Diagramms. And the text you removed is 1:1 from the English article… ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 13:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- 1 : a graphic design that explains rather than represents; especially : a drawing that shows arrangement and relations (as of parts)
- 2 : a line drawing made for mathematical or scientific purposes
- Neither one sounds like charts and graphs.
- --Timeshifter (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- A diagram is a type of chart by their reckoning [1], but definitions will vary. Wiktionary has it both ways: a chart is a type of diagram [2] and a diagram is a type of chart [3]. I wonder if we should have a high-level category like "diagrams, charts and graphs", and let the subcategories distinguish well-defined types. --ghouston (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- There's another discussion at Category talk:Graphs. Category:Graphs is a disambiguation. --ghouston (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chart
- That's interesting that Merriam-Webster dictionary thinks it is in the opposite direction than any of us were thinking in our discussions on the Commons. That diagrams are charts. Things keep changing in English usage. But even though that definition may be true for some people, it sure does not feel like popular usage.
- See also: Category talk:Information graphics. I like Orrling's comment:
What I like in the "Information graphics" form is that it makes very clear to every user - and most of us are probably not from North America - that it has the two distinct thematic kernels: information --- and --- graphics, now matched together to accomplish a specific idea. "Infographics" is very OK as much as other portmanteaus are OK, I just notice that "Information graphics" is more directly reflective of the actual essence preserving the whole "information" basis.
- Information graphics or infographics includes a lot more than just "diagrams, charts and graphs". It includes maps too. See the intro to Category:Information graphics.
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infographics
- --Timeshifter (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus, not much of a proposal found in this discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 23:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)