Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2012/04
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 April 2012
This category is a duplicate of category Category:CIE XYZ and should thus be deleted. Note: I already moved all files to Category:CIE XYZ. Sorry for the wrong execution order. --Torsch (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't exist Friedrichstrasse (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
This and its two subcats Category:Eastern Pagoda and Category:Western Pagoda are empty duplicates of the populated categories Category:Eastern and Western Pagodas (Kunming), Category:Eastern Pagoda (Kunming), and Category:Western Pagoda (Kunming). --Deor (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Now-empty ambiguously named meta category should just be deleted. This was previously discussed in February. One other commenter at the time didn't support the current name, but wanted "Images by format" instead, which I still think is too ambiguous. Previous contents, which I have moved to the main Category:Images, mixed file formats with some other type of criterion that wasn't clear (see previous discussion for details). - dcljr (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Now-empty ambiguously named meta category should just be deleted. This was previously discussed in February. One commenter at the time seemed to support deletion ("Category doesn't make sense"), but didn't explicitly say. Other commenter didn't seem to like my suggested rename, but also didn't explicitly say what he/she preferred. Previous subcats related to "size" have been moved to Category:Images by resolution (and, in the case of "wallpaper" related categories, to Category:Images by usage also [maybe not exactly what the creator of the "by usage" category had in mind, but that category name is also ambiguous, so.....]); those related to "form" have been moved to the main Category:Images. - dcljr (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
This category is misspelled (that's "disease", not "diseae") and duplicates Category:Diseases and disorders. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 23:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
jaká je spotřeba za hodinu u notebooku a u domáciho PC 62.168.45.106 19:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Google Translate says the above translates to: "what is the consumption per hour at the laptop and home PC". - dcljr (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed, you might want to try the w:Wikipedia:Reference desk for general questions. --rimshottalk 23:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Please delete empty cat: all entries moved to Category:Metropolitan Borough of Dudley, because that's clearer that it's the borough, not the town. Auntof6 (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
to delete see Category:Stained glass windows of Église Saint-Pierre de Limours GFreihalter (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
elle doit être une sous-catégorie de Mathieu(Calvados) Pimprenel (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Done done, (not the right procedure for this) Sylenius (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Done. -- Common Good (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
delete: redundant with Category:Nurses from Japan 84.97.149.42 03:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
redundant and empty 84.97.149.42 04:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Empty category. Typo in name. Now it's Category:Manalapan EpiCentre Tinton5 (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Who is this? Notability? Within project scope? I doubt it. FA2010 (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete None of the images are used, no Google news hits on "Wolfgang Diondavich" ever, nothing except social networking hits for "Wolfgang Diondavich" in the regular search. I'm placing all of the images up for deletion as well for being out of scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as this category has now been emptied due to Commons:Deletion requests/File:JyiaH0fsTihpnygfLymhJHr7o1 400.jpg. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Depreciated in favor of the categories built into {{LemillReview}} Sven Manguard Wha? 00:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted by User:Foroa. Replaced by Category:Commons. Lemill Web Albums. Geagea (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion: duplicate category created in error. Motacilla (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted on 12. Apr. 2012 by Foroa "Category:Shopping Arcades in the United Kingdom (Author requested deletion of page: content was: "{{Category for discussion|1=|month=04|year=2012}}Category:Arcades in the United Kingdom Category:Shopping arcades" (and the only contributor was "Motacilla"))" --GeorgHH • talk 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add the subcategory "Media companies of the Netherlands" because there is a relevant image for that categorie here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drukkerij_Nederland.jpg Pvdkerk (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- In this case, you can put the subcategory without discussion. J o (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Done --Foroa (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Done, uncontroversial. --rimshottalk 22:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion for new Subcategorie: Companies of the Netherlands by industry because there is an image available for categorisation in that subcategory. The image is called drukkerij-nederland and is a image of the logo of a website which links to (most of) the printing companies in the Netherlands. Pvdkerk (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Done --Foroa (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Done, uncontroversial. --rimshottalk 22:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Inappropriate name. Alternative category has created as Category:Bayonets of Japan. ~ 丁 (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Empty please delete. All pictures in Category:Orbiting Solar Observatory. ~ Uwe W. (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an entirely inappropriate redirect. Not all Indigenous Australians are Australian Aboriginals. Indigenous Australians also include Torres Strait Islanders who are Melanesians not Aboriginals. ~ Mattinbgn (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Weird category tree; a private project by a new user. Can somebody help? 188.104.114.179 18:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Please delete. I created this cat before realizing there was already a cat for her (Category:Marguerite Gardiner, Countess of Blessington). INeverCry 20:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The category isn't necessary - Category:Wikimedia meetups in the United Kingdom is more than sufficient... Mike Peel (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. -- Common Good (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
iojaase;rokkjpokiy8yi8esb';dd;d7cgffyfhgujrqwwehom,zzxdsdgtrggft.hk.l,.;kp9-ijsvsnsdrefuiio0pe 77.253.122.43 08:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed, nonsense request. --Martin H. (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
As action painting refers to the impulsive or random gestures of paint on an image carrier. Als Actionpainting bezeichnet man die impulsive bzw. willkürliche Gestik des Farbauftrags auf einen Bildträger. Der amerik. Künstler Jackson Pollok malte in den 60-70 Jahren auf ausgerollten Leinwänden mit Tripping. --Jorge Correo 15:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- My point in requesting discussion was that a relevant category already exists: Category:Action paintings. For some reason my initial message was truncated. 84.97.149.81 17:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Action paintings. --rimshottalk 06:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
In my view, apart from the use of the word "flap", automobile flaps and aircraft wing flaps have nothing in common. What use does this category have? Ariadacapo (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- The flaps are aerodynamic devices. --Foroa (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, I get it now (it’s much clearer since new sub-categories have been added. I brought up a useless CfD. I’ll remove the notice. Sorry for the disturbance Ariadacapo (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed, by originator. (fixed by me) --rimshottalk 21:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Should be deleted. (Empty for more than a year; superseded) McZusatz (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Superseded by what? - dcljr (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Are you just saying we have no sound files left that aren't MIDI or Ogg, and no one can upload any other sound file format anymore? - dcljr (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sry, I made a mess of this. Now it's clear for what this category can be used for.
- So I added some information on the categories page.--McZusatz (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- . --McZusatz (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Resolved
- Are you just saying we have no sound files left that aren't MIDI or Ogg, and no one can upload any other sound file format anymore? - dcljr (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Problem fixed -FASTILY (TALK) 23:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Should be deleted. (Empty for more than a year; superseded) McZusatz (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Superseded by what? - dcljr (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Are you just saying we have no sound files left that aren't MIDI or Ogg, and no one can upload any other sound file format anymore? - dcljr (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, kinda. If so. uploads multimedia in any other format than ogv/ogg it get's linked on this site. So tagging it with {{Convert to OGG}} is redundant? --McZusatz (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- . --McZusatz (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Resolved
- Yes, kinda. If so. uploads multimedia in any other format than ogv/ogg it get's linked on this site. So tagging it with {{Convert to OGG}} is redundant? --McZusatz (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Are you just saying we have no sound files left that aren't MIDI or Ogg, and no one can upload any other sound file format anymore? - dcljr (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved apparently -FASTILY (TALK) 23:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
to delete see Category:Hezekiah GFreihalter (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Hezekiah. --rimshottalk 17:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
redundant with Category:Esteburg; empty 84.97.149.81 19:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Esteburg. --rimshottalk 17:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Category:Tanken has been created instead. ~ 丁 (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Tanken is not a very well known name, "Tanken (dirk)" or "Tanken (Japanese dirk)" may make it easier for people to find these images.samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- W
Why are you asking for a discussion when you have made a new category already? samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but those names were strange among other categories. If other usage of "Tanken" appeared, this category should be renamed again. --丁 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- You did not answer why you would ask for a discussion and at the same time you create a new category? samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that I misunderstood the notification form as deletion request. I won't use it again. --丁 (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, just wanted to be clarify the issue. samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Tanken. --rimshottalk 17:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Category:Tanken has been created instead. ~ 丁 (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why are you asking for a discussion when you have already made a new category?samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Tanken. --rimshottalk 17:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Category:Gunto has been created instead. ~ 丁 (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why are you asking for a discussion when you already have made a new category? samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Gunto. --rimshottalk 17:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Should be Pray-Harrold, to use the actual name of the building. Suggest leaving a redirect in place as others may make the same error. ~ cmadler (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 17:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I assume that the whole category system (including the single years) is not compatible with the COMMONS project. Creating categories with trolleybus transport by year is not neccessary. 178.7.229.166 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Commons already have Category:Tram transport by year and a lot of another categories "by year". 16:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Keep. J 1982 (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 17:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
unnecessary category; only one ship in the class (Pelayo) Antramir (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 17:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
unneeded category: first ship in class was actually Reina Cristina; new category now created, and all files reorganized Antramir (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 17:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
delete: redundant with Category:Gripsholms slott 84.97.149.42 03:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- The category: Gripsholm is not entirely redundant, for Gripsholms kungsladugård (a cowhouse) is not the same as Gripsholms slott (a castle). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars (Lon) Olsson (talk • contribs) 09:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept, as a disambiguation. --rimshottalk 21:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
redundancy with Category:Respiratory therapy ? 84.97.149.81 18:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Care and therapy are different things. --Foroa (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept, no follow-up. --rimshottalk 23:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This cat and all subcats redundant with Category:Mines by country and subcats. 84.97.149.81 19:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Mining and mines is not the same, though there might be some overlapping. --Foroa (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- The topic of mining includes quite a bit more than just pictures of the mines:
- the people involved, and their culture
- the methods, tools and machinery used
- the infrastructure around the mines, like railways, water handling, mills, etc
- statistics and diagrams
- the companies and organizations
- museums
- ...
- Hence I don't see a redundancy. --Tetris L (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed per reasons mentioned. To add: e.g.: Category:California Gold Rush goes under Category:Gold mining in California, not Category:Gold mines in California since it is not a mine, but a mining event. Likewise, there exist in a number of such categories subcategories such as "Mining accidents in %country%", "History of mining in %country%", etc. Morgan Riley (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- The topic of mining includes quite a bit more than just pictures of the mines:
Kept as per discussion. --rimshottalk 23:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Contains only COM:FOP#Mongolia violations. 84.61.139.62 20:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Ridiculous --[chinneeb|talk] 02:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept, the contained file survived a DR. --rimshottalk 13:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
merge with B&W photographs of cities? Sepia photos are B&W, same photo can exist both sepia and not sepia; no clear boundary; few files in cat. 84.97.149.42 00:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Original (real printed) sepia photo's are quite different from B&W photo's.
Not done, no reply to objections. --rimshottalk 22:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
rename to Merwede-Linge Lijn or similar 84.97.149.81 17:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is de official name given by Arriva self --Bezeh.nl (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done, no reply to objections. --rimshottalk 22:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
If it is the same as Category:V-sign it should be redirected. Comment: en.wiki page is en:V sign --GeorgHH • talk 01:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not the same: victory pose means I number one, V sign is V; --Foroa (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept, no reply to objections. --rimshottalk 22:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
there's more in this cat than 'late nineteenth century art movement of French and Belgian origin': split? 84.97.149.81 18:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- absolutely, split. per WP: Category:Symbolism, keep for the the generic term, and Category:Symbolism (arts) for the art movement. Ive moved the various foriegn language links to the right one, and the images. unless someone thinks what i did was wrong, this can be closed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Split as per nom. --rimshottalk 21:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Also:
Category:17th-century way of lifeCategory:18th-century way of life
Category:Pre-World War I (1890-1914) way of life
It is not clear to me how these recently-created categories differ from their Category:19th century, etc. equivalents. "Way of life" is incredibly broad and vague, and given the grab bag of images contained in these categories, seems to encompass just about anything from that period. These contents of these categories, and "way of life" subcats, should be moved to existing categories. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Category:19th century, etc. equivalents" deal with everything dating back to those historical periods. Those "way of life " cats deal only with/illustrate everyday life of every social classes of the time in all its aspects : works, homes, fashion and clothes, religious activities, etc. but not with military history for instance though those "way of life cats" are parts of the "centuries cats". Thib Phil (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- We already have specific century/decade categories dealing with art, fashion, religion, etc. We don't need a duplicate, parallel category structure with a vague, overly-broad and confusing name like "way of life", which conceivably covers everything. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- All those collected documents give a vivid overview of what was the common peoples life during those periods. Paintings, engravings, drwings of those times were allways considered as "artistic works" not "historical documents". Those cats render this historical/social/ethnical approach. Cheers Thib Phil (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- We already have specific century/decade categories dealing with art, fashion, religion, etc. We don't need a duplicate, parallel category structure with a vague, overly-broad and confusing name like "way of life", which conceivably covers everything. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- In fact I created those cats to illustrate future entries on FR-Wikipedia dealing with those topics. In french langage there are books dealing with historical/period way of life - see this for the french-speaking peoples or this and this one ( fr - schoolteaching of the way of life during the Middle-age). So, it might maybe seem useless to En-speaking ones who are not familiar with that kind of literature but it has a sense/meaning for other cultures. Cheers folks Thib Phil (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- PS : See this in English language. Phil
- No one is disputing that the phrase "way of life", or "la vie quotidienne" for that matter, exists. Providing links to the use of these phrases on the web misses the point of this deletion discussion. It's vague and unhelpful terminology for categories, which based on your comments above suggests that this is one person's sociology work rather than meaningful categorization, and the categories largely duplicate existing, more clearly-named categories. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- It duplicated an existing category structure dealing with civilians and the home front. Only upon dealing with that one did I come across this whole category structure you've created. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Great ! What's the title of this cat dealing with civilians and the home front ? I could use it to illustrate the planned article dealing with civilians life during World War II ( both nazi-occupied countries and allied nations ) ? Regards Thib Phil (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Category:World War II home front - It's mentioned in the edit summary deleting Category:Civilians way of life during World War II. Hope that helps. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Great ! What's the title of this cat dealing with civilians and the home front ? I could use it to illustrate the planned article dealing with civilians life during World War II ( both nazi-occupied countries and allied nations ) ? Regards Thib Phil (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- It duplicated an existing category structure dealing with civilians and the home front. Only upon dealing with that one did I come across this whole category structure you've created. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Does anyone still object to the deletion of these categories, with content recategorized in the existing categories? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have added Category:Way of life during Antiquity, Category:Way of life in ancient Asia, Category:Late medieval way of life (12th-15th centuries), Category:Dark Ages and early medieval way of life and all subcats to the discussion. We have more precise categories for all of this content. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete them all before it propagates to millions of cities to serve as dustbin/miscellaneous category. This subjective organisation is typical galley work. --Foroa (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. In addition to deletion, though, we would make sure all content is appropriately categorized in the existing categories pertaining to fashion, art, religion, etc. for the applicable time periods. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have added Category:Way of life during Antiquity, Category:Way of life in ancient Asia, Category:Late medieval way of life (12th-15th centuries), Category:Dark Ages and early medieval way of life and all subcats to the discussion. We have more precise categories for all of this content. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Everyday life in the 19th century, starting a new subseries of Category:Everyday life by time. I think this is what was intended with that series, and the visual topic of everyday life through time is important and encyclopedic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- EXACTLY ! Those "everyday life through ages" cats are intended to illustrate entries on FR-Wikipedia rather than galleries ! " Delete them all before it propagates to millions of cities to serve as dustbin/miscellaneous category " - such as useless cats like "man with a hat" or "man looking right" - to delete also ??? Thib Phil (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have another wrinkle, not sure if it fits exactly with this discussion or belongs elsewhere. I am trying to figure out how to sub-categorize Category:Genre paintings appropriately.
- The pre-Raphaelites seem to be somewhat covered in Category:Middle Ages in art, but even they depicted other periods, from ancient history to the Regency, and no other periods seem to be covered in the "in art" categories. Then there is Category:History paintings, but I think that's distinct from genre paintings.
- It seems to me that there is a useful distinction between a contemporaneously-painted genre scene (such as those by Hogarth or Boucher), and a later one that depicts a scene set in that time period (such as those by Soulacroix or Regianini), which were generally painted in the late 19th/early 20th century, though such works are still being created today. The former would belong, I think, in Category:18th-century genre paintings, but I don't think the latter belong there because they were painted in a different century.
- There is a Category:Genre paintings by period, which includes such categories as Category:Rococo revival paintings that has some discussion of it, but "Rococo" and the other terms used in this category, such as Baroque, Romantic, etc., are fairly ambiguous terms which are not easy to use for categorization, especially by a non-specialist. It's also not clear if these categories are intended to be for the period depicted or the period the artist worked in (which would duplicate Category:Genre paintings by century), and a quick review shows both kinds in these categories.
- And then there is Category:Genre paintings by subject, which has only a few subcategories, and this is where I think there might be some crossover with what's being discussed here.
- I would like to come up with a general structure for genre paintings, perhaps a set of categories such as "Genre paintings with 18th-century settings" or "Genre paintings depicting 18th-century scenes" with some firm definitions. Would this duplicate, or be a viable alternative to, what you are trying to accomplish here? Or should I take my questions somewhere else entirely? Laura1822 (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redirected to main century categories per above. Everyday life categories should be discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/09/Category:Everyday life. FDMS 4 23:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Enforcement
on hold, see User talk:Thib Phil#CFD "enforcement". FDMS 4 12:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Carried out (categories deleted) in December 2016. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:19th-century way of life
Closed. FDMS 4 23:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:19th-century way of life
Closed. FDMS 4 23:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:19th-century way of life
Closed. FDMS 4 23:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
This overlaps with Category:Iveagh Bequest (the Iveagh Bequest is the art collection housed in Kenwood House). Both should be merged into a single category called Category:Paintings in the Iveagh Bequest, following the naming pattern of other subcats of Category:Paintings in London. Ham (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree they should be merged. Why do you prefer the Iveagh Bequest rather than Kenwood House, which seems standard to me? We use Yale Center for British Art, not Paul Mellon Collection. Just curious.- PKM (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- My thinking was that the Iveagh Bequest exists as an institution in its own right with trustees etc. I suppose an analogous example is the Courtauld Institute of Art (collection) within Somerset House (building) -- Paintings in Somerset House wouldn't seem right. The American model seems to be something else again; there a collection's identity remains intact after it's been bequeathed to an institution, so you often see, e.g., Andrew Mellon Collection, National Gallery of Art. You never see Mond Bequest, National Gallery, but you do see Iveagh Bequest, Kenwood House or simply Iveagh Bequest on its own, so it's quite unusual in the British context. Ham (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I like paintings in Kenwood house too--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also, to be pedantic - would paintings recently purchased by English Heritage and hung with the collection at Kenwood House (e.g. File:Thomas howard suffolk.jpg) be considered part of the Iveagh Bequest?
- I would have thought not. Either that painting could be outside the cat being proposed, or the merger goes ahead under the current name. Are there many works like this? Ham (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am only aware of one in Commons, but I suspect there are a handful. I created the new cat to match an Institution template for Kenwood House, so we should also consider what the proper institution template should be. - PKM (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- English Heritage has this painting tagged KENWOOD HOUSE, SUFFOLK COLLECTION - answers that one! - PKM (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- The English Heritage prints website uses the format "KENWOOD HOUSE, THE IVEAGH BEQUEST, London" and "KENWOOD HOUSE, SUFFOLK COLLECTION, London." We should probably follow their lead.
- Is it too nutty to have 'Paintings in the Iveagh Bequest' and 'Paintings in the Suffolk Collection' both as subcats of 'Paintings in (or at) Kenwood House'? The Institution template could be Kenwood House with Iveagh Bequest or Suffolk Collection in the "location" parameter. This appeals to me, but I come from a family of librarians... - PKM (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- PS I'd be happy to work on the recategorization once we have consensus. - PKM (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously keep under Kenwood. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- PS I'd be happy to work on the recategorization once we have consensus. - PKM (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am only aware of one in Commons, but I suspect there are a handful. I created the new cat to match an Institution template for Kenwood House, so we should also consider what the proper institution template should be. - PKM (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would have thought not. Either that painting could be outside the cat being proposed, or the merger goes ahead under the current name. Are there many works like this? Ham (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also, to be pedantic - would paintings recently purchased by English Heritage and hung with the collection at Kenwood House (e.g. File:Thomas howard suffolk.jpg) be considered part of the Iveagh Bequest?
- Surely closed now! Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Closed de facto by User:Johnbod 6 December 2014. --Achim (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Unused pictures, childish, close to vandalism UncivilFire (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree It is too vague and subjective for a category and doesn't seem particularly useful for a project like Wikimedia Commons. —Cartoonmaster (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)- Delete We don't have similar categories like Category:Beautiful photographs, Category:Sad photographs, Category:Boring photographs for the good reason that they are highly subjective. Most of the contents aren't funny at all in my personal opinion. I'll be trying to move some of the them to more appropriate categories. --El Grafo (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment another option would be to redirect it to Category:Humor_photos. --El Grafo (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Content moved to Category:Humor photos, cat redirected. --Achim (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
repulsive, inappropriate, disgusting 94.134.93.93 12:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete There is no need for these photos on Commons. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason for deletion of the category (or even the individual pics) has been given. I wonder about the category title, though... - dcljr (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- No consensus. "I don't like it" is no valid rationale for deleting neither files nor categories. --Achim (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Wrong English. Should be "Opera librettos composed by..." etc. I believe the categories to be highly superfluous anyway, so I'd rather delete them than move them. I cannot see any use by collecting images of libretto booklets by composer. ~ AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to the proper English grammar (word order and singular object of the preposition), Category:Opera librettos by composer, and similarly rename its subcategories. I don't think "it doesn't look useful to me" is a good enough reason to delete the categories, and they seem populated enough to make sense as categories. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Librettos by composer, consistent with parent category and general commons style, and fixed related categories as well. No reason to delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Category has a purported criterion for inclusion which is not clear from the category name. Suggest renaming something like Category:Images of more than 50 megapixels, since "large" is way too ambiguous a term (large number of pixels? large number of bytes?). - dcljr (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agree about the comment, but the criterion is shifting each year. On the png side, I would only include images that create thumbnail problems. On the jpeg side, I would include only images greater than 10 times the average modern Jpeg size, say 40 MB. Not sure this should be in the category name. --Foroa (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Foroa. Putting the criterion in the category name would make things unnecessarily complicated. The category is populated by a bot through the {{LargeImage}} template. Template and category are somewhat tied together. The criterion will be dynamic and an ever changing category name won't be very helpful either. --Dschwen (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Foroa--Pierpao.lo (listening) 05:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- If there are specific sizes that cause problems with certain file formats, then separate categories should be created reflecting those sizes and file formats. And if the criteria for what is considered "large" change, then new categories can be created for those new criteria. The sizes of the images certainly aren't going to change, so what would be the problem with that approach? More to the point, if we have a category called "Large images", then people are bound to use it for whatever they happen to think is a "large" image (see also the discussion at the template's talk page). It doesn't really matter if it's a hidden category intended to be populated by a bot or not; it's a common enough phrase that people will probably want to use it regardless of the criteria for inclusion (note that the criteria aren't even given in the template itself, which makes its use similarly ambiguous). BTW, does anyone know if the bot that populates this cat also removes images that don't belong there? Does it add the template to images that are "manually" added to the cat (and belong there) but not via the template? - dcljr (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I operate the bot and yes, it is designed to also remove the tag from images where it doesn't belong. But since I'm fed up with people who love to argue about the exact pixel number and exact byte number that should constitute a Large Image I usually deactivate removal of "wrong" tags. --Dschwen (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Foroa. Putting the criterion in the category name would make things unnecessarily complicated. The category is populated by a bot through the {{LargeImage}} template. Template and category are somewhat tied together. The criterion will be dynamic and an ever changing category name won't be very helpful either. --Dschwen (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why is it so hard not to discuss about this stupid insignificant little template?! I guess because everybody has an opinion on what a large image should be. Textbook bike shed example! Just let the template be, trust my common sense and not overthink this thing. There is absolutely no gain here from complicating matters. This CFD just binds resources in a point less discussion. There I did it. I lost my temper and now there is no chance in hell the originator of this CFD will concede and let it go. Great.. Sorry guys! --Dschwen (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is a typical "In Bot we trust" case. Let it go, no need to spend our energy in verifying 5000 items in a technical category that has no topical value. --Foroa (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
(Don't be intimidated by the length of this reply. I'm not ranting, just trying to be precise.) Hmm... I'm not sure I understand the way this discussion is going. Foroa, no one has to "spend our energy in verifying 5000 items", since the bot does that already. And note that I'm not suggesting a change to the criteria being used by the bot, only the name of the category. I'm not even suggesting renaming the template, although I think that would give some significant benefits, as well, which I'll mention below.
Dschwen, the presumption that "everybody has an opinion on what a large image should be" is precisely why the category was nominated in the first place: its name is ambiguous. (How can you be making my exact point back to me, and yet also be against changing anything? [g]) Having categories named things like "Large images" or "Small images" is just inviting trouble. Now, judging from the template's talk page (which I hadn't seen when I started this nomination), it seems that it has been "so hard not to discuss" the template in part because of the ambiguity in its name (and, until it was clarified, the criterion being used — digression: I assume it's still just a single criterion; I can't actually find the source code for your bot that handles {{LargeImage}}s, only the code for {{Location}}s).
That all being said, however, this nomination is only about the category, and just changing the category name is, AFAICT, a completely trivial matter: you change the cat ref in the template and MediaWiki does the rest (via the job queue). If/when you decide to change the criterion again, you can simply change the category ref in the template, wait for MW to do its thing, then change your script and let it remove any images that no longer fit the new criteria (then delete the old cat). Right? How is this "unnecessarily complicating" things?
Finally, even though I'm not calling for it, note that also using a more precise template name (e.g., {{Images over 50 megapixels}}, along with a more precise warning message in the template itself) would have added benefits, including not having to discuss the ambiguous naming of the template with other users in the future, being able to re-enable the "removal" feature of your bot again (since people are less likely to complain about a template marking images over 50 megapixels being removed from an image that's not over 50 megapixels — oh, but I see your bot is already back to removing the template), and having the option to keep the old template category around for users that still need them when a new criterion is chosen.
And finally-finally [g], I am not "conced[ing] and let[ting] it go" not because you lost your temper, but because I find your position... well, frankly, strange. It smacks of a kind of "doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome" style of "insanity". I'm not mad about this; it just seems kinda like you're getting aggravated over continually stepping on rocks but you're ignoring the suggestion to wear shoes... [g] - dcljr (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- And BTW, AFAICT the criterion for inclusion has changed exactly once in five years. This doesn't really match the claims that it's an "ever changing" criterion or one that changes "each year"... - dcljr (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- As Dschwen mentioned {{LargeImage}} is really not suggestiv. It's only for JPEG's and also redundant to {{InteractiveViewer}}!?! -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 01:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. I hadn't noticed that other template. I'm not sure what you mean with your first sentence, but note that {{LargeImage}} is not only for JPEGs since, for example, DschwenBot placed the template on File:Milwaukee 1858.png. - dcljr (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok I`m sorry, then the error-message of the viewer is wrong. Yes then also forget my first sentence. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 12:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. I hadn't noticed that other template. I'm not sure what you mean with your first sentence, but note that {{LargeImage}} is not only for JPEGs since, for example, DschwenBot placed the template on File:Milwaukee 1858.png. - dcljr (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- As Dschwen mentioned {{LargeImage}} is really not suggestiv. It's only for JPEG's and also redundant to {{InteractiveViewer}}!?! -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 01:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just a word of explanation, why I have created {{InteractiveViewer}}: for certain kind of images, like scanned maps with lots of details, it is pretty useful to have this viewer tool also for smaller files (than 50MP). --Alexrk2 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
... And, of course, nothing ever came of this discussion. Not even officially closed. Typical. - dcljr (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
no result, category remains at it is. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Proposition of reviewing and fusion of Category:Atmospheric optical phenomena Category:Atmospheric optical phenomena of Earth: see discussion page [1].
84.97.149.43 03:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done: meanwhile, the category has been reorganized. Ruthven (msg) 10:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Category has a purported criterion for inclusion which is not clear from category name. Suggest rename to something like Category:Images up to 500 pixels in length (the supposed current criterion), since "small" is too ambiguous a term (small number of pixels? small number of bytes?). Note the four similarly-named subcategories:
- Category:Small-sized coats of arms
- Category:Small-sized flags
- Category:Small-sized paintings
- Category:Small-sized stamps
all of which have the additional ambiguity of whether the "small" refers to the image or the object it's an image of. I'm directing CFDs for them to this entry, as well. - dcljr (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with new names. --Butko (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok then we do so. But I would propose a categorization for example like Category:Coats of arms by pixel size and then Category:Coats of arms up to 500 pixels in length, Category:Coats of arms up to 250 pixels in length. (Also for me personally are 500 px not small.) -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 13:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This category should have a template like {{Thumbnail}}, otherwise it is difficult to manage. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 10:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I put really the point of this category in question. Almost all coats of arms of the largest online collection of the world would in here (put in {{Ngw2}}). Where is the sense? That although I have set down the size from 500 to 250px. --
ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ℗ 15:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Not done: Discussion is stalled and no consensus, can be re-opened if needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)