Single-entry cat that is mis-spelled. "CO" is carbon monoxide, "Co" is not just mis-cap, but instead means cobalt. But rather than fix, I don't think we need this cat level at all. It only has one entry, whose name already indicates (with correct typography) that it is "CO". And the parent Category:Gas pipelines is not very full and does not have other subcat'ing by type of gas. DMacks (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have checked some photos of polar bears at Skansen, and some of them are clearly taken in the same place as these two photos. The files need to be renamed and moved to one of the Skansen categories. / Achird (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the creator of these categories, and I made a mistake because they already exist with other names (ex:"Details by 15th-c. unidentified artists from GERMANY").
So I'm beginning to empty them and after that I'll ask for speedy delation with tag {{Bad name}}
I think I'll finish today.
Sorry for these troubles and thanks for all your advices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'artauprésent (talk • contribs)
Since it's empty and the correct category already exists, I put a bad name template on it. An admin will delete it. FYI, this kind of case doesn't require discussion: you can add the bad name template yourself. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Messed up on the title again. My sincere apologies - this is my time constructing a category. Should say: "Köppen climate classification maps of Australia". Redtitan (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bad name template added. An admin will probably delete soon. If you have this problem again (and we all have!), you can place the bad name template yourself: discussion here isn't really needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The cat name should be Ziraat Bank. "Ziraat Bankası" is the name in Turkish, but the English version should only change "Bankası" to Bank". This is a proper name, not to be translated. E4024 (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no parent trivia by city category, and there should not be. All the categories here and pictures should be upmerged to parent category. This is a very bad category that might as well be named "pictures related to this city (Krakow) that didn't fit into any other existing category". Burn with fire. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk13:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the current "(chemical element)" disambiguation term is not correct. Alternatives like "Aurin (chemical)" or "Aurin (dye)" would be fine. Could also go with "Rosolic acid" or "Corallin", which are synonym for the chemical name. DMacks (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on a name other than "Aurin" ( precision). It is the name of all the files in the category, and the title of the compound article for 11 of the 13 existing versions (only pt: and zh: have a different title). Small preference for "Aurin (chemical)". Rhadamante (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit disconcerted when renaming this category, and agree that Aurin is a molecule, not an element. Aurin (chemical) has my preference. Jack ma (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category is an example of overcategorization. Images are in their respective Tower of Terror categories (by location), and this does not include all of the interior pictures of the Towers. Each tower is also slightly different, so this category is not necessary. Elisfkc (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this category can be realistically useful for any educational purpose: the concept seems too vague and pointless. Moreover at least half of the images on Commons contains one or more elements somewhat protruding. Basilicofresco (msg) 12:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, "senators" is misspelled. Second, the only member of the category is "... with Bertie Ahern", who is not a US senator. GRuban (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK - the category was renamed. To: Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton with US Sentators. So ... the word "senators" which I drew attention to was capitalized but left misspelled? Seriously? And File:Hillary Clinton and Bertie Ahern.jpg was removed from the category. Great! Thank you! However, instead, File:Bill Clinton and officials on Air Force One.jpg was added to the category. And to a number of other Hillary Rodham Clinton categories. Hillary Rodham Clinton is not in that picture. No offence, but is there any chance of just a bit more care being taken? In principle, the category is OK, but in practice, this is a bit of a mess. I'm leaving the deletion request up, since that will allow us to check on the category to see whether any other interesting artifacts show up. --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Category:Births by century and moved most of the contents of this category there. I then altered {{Birthcat}} to sort all categories of the form 'X births' (where X is any year) into this category. It'll take awhile for these categories to show up though; for example, I currently see 'Births by year' in Category:1990 births, but the latter does not (yet) show up in the former. Mindmatrix16:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, it looks quite fine now. Am I supposed to take some action in order to close this discussion? It's the first one I ever opened. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Title is too generic for the content, but I don't know what it should be called. It's apparently for game(s) or match(es) between German and Russian handball teams but I don't know if it's all one match, one series, or multiple ones. The title should indicate dates, match or game identifiers, or something. Auntof6 (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong when I created the categories and I am agree with the current name. But I would keep the categories with the names in Spanish with a redirection to the correct category. Ivanhercaz | Discusión12:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong opposeIt's venn diagram, Jochen, but not as we know it (it is not about sets). The concept is serious and there are quite a lot of images in the category and its hypocategories (subcategories) that seem potentially usefull. There is a clear distinction between these files and the general concept of venn diagrams. So, just keep this as separate category, as a hypo(/sub)category of Venn diagrams and of Logic diagrams and of Boolean algebra. --Paulbe (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Johnston diagram "File:Venn-or.svg"Venn diagram "File:VennDiagramAcupB.png"Comment From de:Mengendiagramm#Johnston-Diagramme, I got the impression that a Venn diagram is called "Johnston diagram" when applied to propositional logic. The article is not very clear about what can be done with them, but I guess, some propositional simplicifations and proofs can be achieved in a graphical way. My impression is still that there are no Venn diagrams that aren't also Johnston diagrams, and, vice versa, there are no Johnston diagrams that aren't also Venn diagrams — @Paulbe: if this is wrong, could you provide me a counter-example? Anyway, many images in (subcategories of) Category:Johnston diagrams simply show a Venn diagram, without any particularity; for example File:Venn-or.svg (in Category:Blue and transparent Johnston diagrams) is almost a duplicate of File:VennDiagramAcupB.png (in Category:2-set Venn diagrams); apparently one of them is mis-categorized. If the "Venn" / "Johnston" distinction is to be kept, we need a clear criterion how to (re-)classify the images. Certainly, "not as we know it" isn't yet sufficiently clear for that purpose. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This category and categories nested under it are empty, and targets are too specific to be practical. I created these categories. I don't think we need them or find them very useful. 80.221.159.6700:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, may be the other way around - but I think the name has changed to "ss". The official website for the city of Celle is www.celle.de (see impressum of this site), and for this site there is a search function, search "Schloßplatz": 33 matches, search "Schlossplatz": 122 matches. Again, both spellings acceptable, but only one should be used here. NobbiP21:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Nobbi, ist merkwürdig, in [1] von Dez 2015 steht Schloßplatz. Vielleicht sollte ich mal nachsehen, was auf dem Straßenschild steht, bin in einer Woche in der Gegend unterwegs. --Achim (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dass die Suche mehr Treffer für Schlossplatz liefert, liegt wohl daran, dass a) nicht immer der Straßenname gemeint sein muss ("auf dem Schlossplatz ist usw.") und b) die automatische Rechtschreibkontrolle der Textverabeitung zugeschlagen haben mag. Auf jeden Fall steht auf allen Straßenschildern (hab nachgesehen) Schloßplatz. Wenn sich das mal ändert, können wir ja die Kategorien entsprechend anpassen. --Achim (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-categories are not uniform with the parent category. Should the proper term be Khanqahs or Khanqah "of/in X"? Zoupan (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The English article Khanqah use the word in plural (all khanqahs, large khanquahs...). Thus, the right form should be Khanqahs → Khanqahs by country → Khanqahs in ‹country›. --ŠJů (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that subcategories with “Simple” do not make sense in general. For chemical structures, however, it's nuts. Chemical structures are simple by default, and easily drawn with special software. Thus, I emphasize my request for 'deletion above. --Leyo20:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or duplicate-tag. It definitely seems redundant. I don't see what makes these "simple"--many the current files in the simple cat are at least as complex than the non-simple cat. And I don't see the advantage of spreading the set of chemical images that need SVG-ification into multiple places. Most chemical diagrams, simple or complex, are most easily produced by drawing them from scratch in one of several specialized editor programs, so there's not usually a wider pool of talent needed (or available?) in this genre. If the only reason to exist is because some template generates it, seems like the template could be fixed and the cat set as a {{Category redirect}}. As an alternative, if others think there are SVG folks who tackle "simple" and then choose to delve into "chemistry", the template could place in both cats (so chemists see all chemicals, etc). DMacks (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fake player. There have already been two articles about him on Wikipedia that were both speedily deleted. No sources indicate this player even exists, let alone played for Shakhtar Donetsk, a big European club. Should be deleted. Hashim-afc (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hashim-afc: Right now, the category serves to categorize images we have of a particular man, regardless of where he lives/plays. If you think the images should be deleted (and it sounds like they probably should), please propose them for deletion as out of scope. Once the category is empty, it can be deleted as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The category includes subcategories that are not homes, e.g. Log cabins, and even the desription talks about wooden houses, not necessarily homes (in French, chalets are mentioned). The description is lacking anyway, I have no idea what houses should be included. I suppose the related category tree is messy as well. LPfi (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If a home and a house is the same thing in this context, that certainly needs explaining. I'd never call a house a home, unless somebody lives (or have lived or is supposed to be living there) there, while I'd use "house" for many buildings never meant for dwelling. Moving the "homes" to "houses" solves this problem (for me at least), if the larger meaning of "houses" is what is meant – but this illustrates the problem of relying on the names of categories in an international community. By the way, why is Category:Log homes not a subcategory of Timber buildings? --LPfi (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I like that idea very much. It looks like wikipedia entries in many languages are labeled the equivalent of "Trinity College (Connecticut)", so I think the move is a good one. Daderot (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There is no reason to have a category for the most common type of occurrence, for analysis or otherwise. This category is like having an "Articles created using the Edit Button" category on Wikipedia. UploadWizard is the default mode of upload (notice the "Upload file" button on the left pane), we don't need such an infinitely growing category for "statistics". Yes other tools use such categories, but they are not default options. If anything breaks as a result of deleting this category, I suggest we tweak that, rather than copying this redundant category across literally millions of files.
If we really want some stats, we should be calculating the uses of all the other less common modes of upload, and obtain the UploadWizard value by deducting those from the total uploaded files. Yes it is inaccurate, but it's not like the current way is accurate either. I have seen bots and people intentionally removing this category from their uploads (I have being doing so for quite some time too).
Comment I'll note that this will need a simple wiki configuration change for UploadWizard to stop it from adding the category to new files, which we'll be happy to make if desired (I work for WMF's Multimedia team). We don't use the category; when we need to track files uploaded with UW for statistical purposes, we query for the "User created page with UploadWizard" edit summaries. Matma Rex (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not reliable or consistent since it can be added or removed at will. Since there's another way to find these files (as described above), a category shouldn't be needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion would serve no useful goal, since Mediawiki deals just find with large categories. While you don't have to browse the category as a list, it's still useful to check at the bottom of individual file pages if you want to help new users who make mistakes. Besides, category would get re-created immediately at next upload, and deleting it from all million file pages would be disruptive. – b_jonas20:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely useless for ordinary navigation, and as noted, a category that holds the vast majority of images is pointless for statistics tracking, especially as a different kind of query (with no category needed) is used when tracking files uploaded with uploadwizard. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless ballast. Unless we understand it as a maintenance category which appeals to fix disorder caused standardly by UploadWizard (additional description, monument ID templates and source and licence templates outside the {{Information}} template, missing heading parameter in coordinates etc.). --ŠJů (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but please do it slowly. If a bot is tasked to remove the categorization, it should only do it together with other fixes in the respective file. Editing millions of files just because of a superfluous cat seems a bit excessive. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, useless. Also remove the canned "Uploaded by UploadWizard" text for upload descriptions, it's equally annoying and not helpful. Sarcastically I would also prefer the basic uploader to be the default uploader too. 80.221.159.6715:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the file pages will be cleaned globaly, the <!--{{ImageUpload|basic}}--> tag used in 2008, 2009 should be removed also. And some other useless ballast. --ŠJů (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The CFD was open for longer than a month as required by policy and additionally the CFD has been announced on multiple boards/talkpages. WMF is no longer using the Category. Consensus to delete the category exists.
Because the category contains tons of files, we can't remove all files at this time (in a big patch, it would be a was of resources). Operators of maintenance bots, such as YaCBot, are encouraged to add the task (COM:Regex [Minor] (diff)) to they bots.
phab:T147799 has been filed to stop UploadWizard form adding the category automatically to uploads.
To get the number of files uploaded by UploadWizard (or to get a lot of files) the database can be used. Examples: all uploads, live files
Users are welcome to use the talkpage for coordination
I was wrong when I created the categories and I am agree with the current name. But I would keep the categories with the names in Spanish with a redirection to the correct category. Ivanhercaz | Discusión12:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong when I created the categories and I am agree with the current name. But I would keep the categories with the names in Spanish with a redirection to the correct category. Ivanhercaz | Discusión12:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong when I created the categories and I am agree with the current name. But I would keep the categories with the names in Spanish with a redirection to the correct category. Ivanhercaz | Discusión12:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong when I created the categories and I am agree with the current name. But I would keep the categories with the names in Spanish with a redirection to the correct category. Ivanhercaz | Discusión12:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I created the category to have all these images in one place (as they all follow the same scheme); I didn't know a better name. If you have an alternative idea where to put them, I'd not oppose. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The name doesn't necessarily say that "Didoku" is a type of puzzle, but maybe "Puzzles from Didoku"? Is "Didoku" also the name of a company? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate of Category:Nampo Dam. Suggest to leave a redirect at West Sea Barrage to Nampo Dam. Also applies to the subcategory for the Lighthouse and leave a redirect here to Category:Nampo Dam lighthouse ErickAgain 13:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
At present, this category is connected to Category:Sephardic Jews in Wikidata. I believe this is not correct, because the category includes many different subcats like "Category:Barcelona Haggadah (14th C) - BL Add MS 14761" or "Category:Sephardi food". In my opinion, this category should be connected to "Category:Sephardi Jews topics" at Wikidata. A new Commons category comprising all "people" subcats under "Category:Sephardic Jews" should be created within this very category that we are discussing now, and this newly created cat should be connected to the Wikidata category with the same name ("Category:Sephardic Jews"). Thanks. E4024 (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct. Sephardim (plural noun) is exactly the same as Sephardi Jews, see also Category:Ashkenazi Jews (=Ashkenazim) and d:Q7217064 for the other big ethnic group. However, Category:Sephardim contains images/cats that don't depict Jews but things which are somehow related to Sephardic culture/tradition/history/whatelse. --Achim (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a flat category needed other than under Category:Historical photos of Donetsk? If you're concerned that that category can contain subcategories, you should know that 1) it can't have anything in it right now because it's redirected, and 2) the "by alphabet" categories can also contain subcategories. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I spot checked some files in each of the two categories. There was no defaultsort and no sort keys on any category, so they're sorting solely by file name. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest rename to Category:Mandatory Palestine, for consistency with Wikipedia article naming for this topic, which reached consensus after a detailed discussion in early 2012.
For subcategories, Commons uses a wide variety of different names - I propose they are also moved to this consistent naming style:
► Establishments in the British Mandate of Palestine by year (1 C) to Establishments in the Mandatory Palestine by year:
► British Mandate of Palestine by decade (4 C) to Mandatory Palestine by decade
► British Mandate of Palestine by year (31 C, 1 P) to Mandatory Palestine by year
► Maps of the British Mandate of Palestine (35 F) to Maps of Mandatory Palestine
► Aviation in the British Mandate of Palestine (4 C, 31 F) to Aviation in Mandatory Palestine
► Buildings in Mandate Palestine (6 C, 11 F) to Buildings in Mandatory Palestine
► Emblems of the British Mandate of Palestine (2 F) to Emblems of Mandatory Palestine
► Flags of the British Mandate of Palestine (2 F) to Flags of Mandatory Palestine
► Galilee-Acre District (British Mandate) (1 C) to Galilee-Acre District (Mandatory Palestine)
► Jerusalem in British Mandate (5 C, 82 F) to Jerusalem in Mandatory Palestine
► Judaism in British Mandate Palestine (3 C, 5 F) to Judaism in Mandatory Palestine
► Military and Law enforcement in the British Mandate of Palestine (8 C, 13 F) to Military and Law enforcement in Mandatory Palestine
► Money of the British Mandate of Palestine (1 C) to Money of Mandatory Palestine
► Official documents of the British Mandate of Palestine (3 C, 5 F) to Documents of Mandatory Palestine - note proposal to lose the unnecessary word "official" here
► People of British Mandate Palestine (5 C, 3 F) to People of Mandatory Palestine
► Public services of the British Mandate of Palestine (2 C) to Public services of Mandatory Palestine
► Sub-district of Tiberias (British Mandate) (11 C) to Sub-district of Tiberias (Mandatory Palestine)
► Transport in the British Mandate of Palestine (2 C) to Transport in Mandatory Palestine
The (English) description on the category page says "Distinguish Category:Pendule small one, often on a table or a desk... and Category:clocks large one in a street or a railway station". The latter is not the definition of a clock, and not all clocks are large, out of doors, or in public places. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: It's phrased rather badly (likely the writer was not a native English speaker) but I think the intention was to put ornate 18th-century French clocks that sit on desks (etc) in Category:Pendule but that other ornate 18th-century French clocks (such as those large ones that might be on the street or displayed a railway station) should just go elsewhere in the Category:Clocks hierarchy. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the pendule are not 18th-century desk clocks of France. Some are more recent, some are in other countries. I did not create Category:Pendule, but I added the phrase to try to distinguish Pendule from Clock. I think that the better solution should be to merge Category:Pendule into Category:Pendulum desk clocks. --Tangopaso (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour le seul terme adéquat me parait être Pendulum clocks, c'est d'ailleurs celui utilisé dans la page de wikipedia anglais consacrée aux pendules. Pour ce qui est du français, toutes les pendules sont des horloges alors que toutes les horloges ne sont pas des pendules, c'est à dire qu'elles n'utilisent pas toutes un balancier (un pendule) pour régulariser leur fonctionnement et la taille de la "caisse" n'a rien à y voir. D'autre part, au bout de presque deux ans, ne serait-il pas temps de clore le débat et de prendre une décision ? Finoskov (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ies: I believe you are the one other person who's been involved with this, so unless I see an objection from you the next couple of days, I will presume consensus. - Jmabel ! talk21:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Would that be a soft redirect like it has now or what? I don't think I've ever done a redirect to a disambiguation page; doesn't that mean that if someone put Category:Logs on a photo, then a bot would move it to the disambiguation page? - Jmabel ! talk22:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good point. I'm not sure how that works, but your guess is probably right. Hmm... I think you can put any image in a disambiguation page, though, so even if we turn Category:Logs into a dab page, people could still populate it. Better to have miscategorized images all in the same category? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I started a pump discussion over the inclusion criteria for a pejorative category like this one (cartoon of a hipster - fine; guy you saw on the street or found on Flickr who you think looks like a hipster - Commons:BLP#Defamation?) and the responses so far have been to call for deletion of the category, so let's have that discussion here. McGeddon (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Rudolph Buch. Useful category (a topic with Wikipedia articles in over a dozen languages). Should not be used for insult or snark; probably should generally be avoided for photos of identifiable people unless there is specific evidence that they self-indentify as "Hipsters" &/or are comfortable with that label. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a lot of uploaders on Flickr who identify themselves, or at least their fashion choice on a certain photo, as "hipster". Sure, this should not be used indiscriminately, but such examples perfectly fit in this category. Hipster subculture in that case is not different from metalhead or goth subculture. --Beaumain (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An editor created the category and placed one picture in it. I reverted the edit on the picture (changed Downtown Wichita back to Wichita, Kansas) and nominated the category for deletion. Now the editor has reverted my edit and added a couple other pictures to the category. If the category is to have any differentiating value, the user should add ALL pictures of downtown Wichita to it, not just three or so. Also, how does one define downtown Wichita? Is this level of granularity manageable, needed? That's what's going on. Jeffrey Beall(talk)10:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, Jeffrey, I didn't want it to sound being angry (I'm no native speaker), I just noticed some see-saw incl deletion request, that I didn't get. --Achim (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of a "downtown" area, while not crisply delineated, seems like a legitimate distinction to me. For me it comes down to whether the category is large enough to warrant diffusion by smaller geographical areas, which I think it probably is. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This claim is not true for the footballer, whose images are categorized under "Başak İçinözbebek". The Turkish Football Federation lists her under the url: [2] or some other websites [3] as such. Maybe another person with a similar name exists. However, the images, the article at the WP:en are all titled correctly. Even her social network accounts state her name as the version existing here. CeeGee (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While it has been declined to generalize the term "railway station" (see en:Talk:Train station#Why "Train Station"?) it was accepted that there are no train stations in the UK and Ireland (see Category:Train stations by country). Many subcategories and descriptions contain the term Railway station also for other European countries. Shortly said, it's a mess. I propose that British English is used for European railways and American English for the A-continents --Gürbetaler (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even though "railway station" is more official term in Europe, there is no real problem with the synonyme "train station". There exist also other local synonymes as "Bahnhof", "gara", "nádraží", "dworzec", "pályaudvar" etc., many of them are also officially and widely used in station names. All of them are more or less equal, none of them is "incorrect". However, English language have not it's own equivalent of the prevalent European terms (a "track court" can be a literal translation). It's simply not true that "there are no train stations in the UK and Ireland". Train stations are in all countries which have railways – independently on the language or terms used in these countries. As Commons:Categories says, category naming is based on universality principle: "Identical item should have identical name for all countries and at all levels of categorization. Categorization structure should be as systematical and unified as possible, local dialects and terminology should be supressed in favour of universality if possible. Analogic categorization branches should have analogic structure."
You propose British English for European railways and American English for the A-continents. Why just so? Why South America should be as a dominion of the USA? What with Asian or African railways? All non-English-language countries have to adapt to unified terminology, although local terminology or even technology or law can be very different for each country. Why just the two English language regions are not willig to conform in the same way? Wasn't the colision of US and UK English at Commons solved yet? It's simply: 133 countries use "train stations", and only 4 countries (UK, Ireland, Switzerland and Liechtenstain) use "railway stations" in the name of the main country category. If the naming policy should be accepted seriously, the 4 countries will adapt their categories to the unified terms. As we can see, a tolerance for an exception for the 4 countries can cause disorder and mess also for other countries.
There exist other - and real - problems with "rail transport" categories which have not their specific "railway" categories and mix all kinds of rail transport together. However, the word "train" is generally understood primarily as "railway train". -ŠJů (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you don't read what native English speakers say about this subject. Maybe language isn't important for you but I prefer a proper use of it, and not only a "universal" use. This is why I made a proposition here. I proposed to distinguish Europe and the A-continents because the discussion up to this point only lead to an agreement, that there is no train station in the British Isles. Likewise there is no "Zugstation" in Switzerland, only a "Bahnstation". But finally other languages don't matter if the categories must be in English. I would be glad to hear from native Australian English speakers what they think about "railway stations". I'm interested to know what Asian people think. Etc.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with missing railway categories began around 2009 and 2010, when many railway categories were broadened to "rail transport" categories. See this, this etc. --ŠJů (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You fall into misleading argumentation. It's simply untruth that "there is no train station in the British Isles". You can just claim that "British Isles native inhabitants don't call train stations by the term train stations". However, Commons categozation is not intended primarily to gratify the language feeling of some local inhabitants, even though from UK or US or AUS. If some variant prevals 133:4 the other one, there is no serious reason to move hundreds or thousands categories from the majority synonyme to the minority one. --ŠJů (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When we speak about correctness of language, I don't like majority arguments.
This is definitely not an urgent issue! If you want to have same things the same way, it might be useful for instance to start moving all those Bahnstrecke X–Y categories, which may be found as subcategories at Category:Railway lines in Germany, to X–Y railway line pattern. Some of those railway line categories in Germany are already named properly in proper english, more than half is not (depending a bit on the states). Most likely there is a similar mess in other countries, at least considering the question on whether en-dash is used or not.
Secondly: In my opinion it is not worth harmonizing parent categories to Railway station / Train station in country XY unless you also harmonize all their subcategories. Otherwise you would only move the problem (if it is one) a few levels lower, but wouldn't solve it. And getting down to the lowest category level you will find categories such as ABC-town train station, ABC-town (train station), ABC-town station, Bahnhof ABC-town, Haltepunkt ABC-town, Train station ABC-town, ABC-town Hauptbahnhof, Estación de ABC-Town, ABC-town pályaudvar, ABC-town railway station and many others. Who is supposed to tell the bot what to do? Is it worth it? Just renaming the countries' railway stations parent categories doesn't make sense to me.
Thirdly: Whatever you do, please do always consider that Wikimedia Commons is not a project for the sake of itself. There might be a bot, which might rename all categories at commons you want. But please consider that all those categories are usually connected to many Wikipedia categories in many languages, also to many wikidata items. It would be necessary to update all those entries. Would your bot take care of this? I am convinced that it is not worth doing all this work, we do have more urgent issues! I am sure that "train station" and "railway station" are understandable synonyms to most users of Wikimedia commons, even though native speakers and those who love the english language might have a different opinion on this. Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gürbetaler: "Correctness of language" is important, but do not confuse a "correct name" with a "name preferred somewhere". The term "train station" is correct, fitting, accurate, unambiguous. Just as the term "railway station". Most nations around the world use none of the two English-language terms but all of them can understand it.
While "rail transport" is not an equivalent of "railway transport" but its hyperonyme. Railway transport is a specific type of rail transport and railway tunnels is a specific type of rail tunnels (or rail transport tunnels). There exist tram tunnels, funicular tunnels, metro tunnels etc. At least in Europe, tram transport, funicular transport and even mining industrial railways are not count among "railways" sensu stricto. --ŠJů (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak about local preference, but perhaps about local correctness. However, the proposition of Kleeblatt is quite different: "it is not worth harmonizing parent categories" or in other words, live with two expressions meaning the same. I can also live with that. And by the way, I wasn't thinking to raise an "urgent issue", I just wanted to know, how to continue, as I met opposition when I introduced new "xxx railway station" categories in Switzerland. Finally, there are (only) three persons discussing here and we have three propositions:
1 harmonize to majority = only use "train station" in the future;
2 live with two terms "railway station" and "train station" as synonyms;
3 harmonize geographically = use "railway station" for Europe and "trains station" for the rest of the world.
Oppose the three propositions immediately above this comment. Projectwide, we always do one of two things: either we use a single term worldwide, or we use a single term except in specific countries that have different usage in English. Consider the Category:Petrol stations by country tree — except for the USA, it's "Petrol stations" worldwide. Unless some additional countries typically call them something different in English (I'm wondering about Canada), they need to be petrol stations, even if there's a differing usage in a nearby English-speaking country: Mexico needs to remain Petrol stations, for example. We must do the same here: use "train station" worldwide, or use "railway station" (or some other common English term) worldwide, or use one of them worldwide except in English-speaking countries that have varying English usage. Non-English-speaking countries, such as Albania, must be "Train stations" unless we choose a different basic term, in which case they must match the new term. I don't care which term we pick, but we have to stick with it consistently. Nyttend (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eine "Zugstation"? Tönt ja auch auf Deutsch ziemlich doof, oder nicht? Und ich verstehe die Briten und die Iren, die solches nicht über ihre Sprache ergehen lassen wollen. --Gürbetaler (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gürbetaler: Hört man in der Deutschschweiz nur Schweizerdeutsch ("eure Sprache")? Hältst du es wirklich nicht aus wenn Touristen (Äquivalent internationales Projekt) Ticket oder Fahrkarte sagen? FDMS 4 19:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Es geht nicht um die Verwendung von Fremdwörtern oder das Verstehen von Varietäten der Standardsprache, sondern darum, welche Wörter ich gebrauchen muss. "Railway station" ist ein rundum verstandener englischer Ausdruck, der aber in Amerika und Australien zu Gunsten von "train station" weniger häufig verwendet wird. Hingegen ist in England und Irland "train station" gänzlich ungebräuchlich, so wie es im Deutschen das Wort Zugstation, ausser in der fantasievollen Sprache einiger Journalisten, nicht gibt. Wenn ich also einen universell verständlichen und einen sprachregional häufig verwendeten Ausdruck habe, bin ich der Meinung, dass man den universellen Ausdruck nehmen sollte. Nur darum geht es. Man schreibt ja in Wikicommons auch railway und nicht railroad, oder? --Gürbetaler (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And to add this: There had been a discussion long ago that concluded that "train station" is not used for categories concerning the United Kingdom and Ireland.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolut legitime Sicht der Dinge. Meine einziges "Argument" pro train station ist der persönliche Geschmack, du verwendest Behauptungen (nicht abwertend gemeint!) als Gegenargument – im Falle einer nachweisbaren Problemstellung bei Verwendung von train station auch für irische bzw. britische Kategorien bin ich natürlich auch für die Verwendung von railway station. Überhaupt würde ich die globale Verwendung von railway station gegenüber der derzeitigen Mischlösung natürlich vorziehen (hoffe das ist nicht missverstanden worden). FDMS 4 16:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gürbetaler and FDMS4: As I know, German uses also the word Zughaltestelle, beside the alternative Bahnhaltestelle. As we have bus stops and stations for buses and tram stops for trams, we can understand also the terms "train stop" and "train stations", even though some national terminological traditions prefer equivalents of "railway stop" or "railway station". The trains are what stops at the stations, "railways" don't stop there. Verbatim translation can be also misleading - e.g. the Czech and Slovak word "dráha" (used for railway or Bahn) meant originally die Viehtrift (drovers' road) and the German word "Hof" (court) from the word "Bahnhof" refers rather to stables and inns for horse-powered transport than to modern transport stations.
We have two widely used synonymes for train stations. Every of them is understandable and relatively unambiguous, every of them has some their pros and cons. We can weigh them, but universality principle should be the most relevant criterium here. Even though the term "railway station" can seem a bit better for an European user, I think the distinction is not so serious to make such massive conversion of the prevalent praxis. On the other side, to achieve harmony with English Wikipedia is also a weighty aim and can reduce repeated revival of this conflict for the future. Btw., if such mass move would be made, harmonization of local dissambiguations should follow: e.g. for Czech railway stops and stations we use unique dissambiguation "(train station)" to follow universality principle of Commons, even though the official local term is "železniční stanice". --ŠJů (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The often used terms in German are: Bahnhof, Bahnstation, Station, Haltestelle, less often Bahnhaltestelle. I have never heard the word Zughaltestelle in normal use. These German words are not fully synonyms but rather indicate a large Bahnhof (apart from Hauptbahnhof = main station), a medium Station or a small Haltestelle. But here we discuss the English term and as ŠJů wrote, it would be very helpful to have universality and this can only be achieved by using the British term railway station. That's all.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ŠJů: Afaik the Czech usage of (train station) – an imo quite obvious perversion of disambiguation brackets – is a violation of the universality principle that is not backed by any kind of sufficiently wide-ranging consensus (see also this CFD, not sure why it was closed without consensus or even a closing rationale). @Gürbetaler: Er, you started this CFD precisely because it is not established that the university principle can only be achieved by using the British term railway station, there are comments above in favour of doing so by using the train station suffix. FDMS 4 17:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FDMS4: Just on the contrary, in civilized countries, train stations have their stabilized and strictly codified unique names (generally, such names should be not translated, even if they are "translantable", as we don't translate Einstein to Onestone). Such a proper name is a base of the category name. To distinguish the station from the place itself, disambiguation brackets (if any disambiguation is needed) are the standard way. Commons naming policy for categories is to use English names for common terms or proper names with established English exonyme, and to use proper names in original form if such a form is used internationally or has not an established English exonyme. I. e. the whole category trees of Austrian and German train stations violate the standard Commons policy by names as Category:Bahnhof Grafenstein (should be Category:Grafenstein (train station)) and Category:Friesach train station (should be Category:Friesach (train station)). In these cases, the German word "Bahnhof" is not a part of the station name but an additional disambiguation (and should be in English and in brackets). Also French category names like Category:Gare de Carnolès deviate from standards, using French common disambiguation word at the top of the category name instead of English disambiguation in brackets. To merge the station name with the common disambiguation word is also ambiguous because such an English grammar construction has also adjective meaning, not only nominative one ("Prague train station" means "(whatever) train station of Prague", not "the train station named Prague" – there are many Prague train stations but none of them has a name "Prague"). Btw., this linked discussion was really useless and nonsense attack on Commons naming logic and standards. We can tolerate the local naming anomalies in German, Austrian or French stations, but it is not a reason to assault the Czech station/stops category names which follow general naming standards of Commons strictly and consistently (per previous general consensus of engaged users, achieved in 2009). Regrettably, some countries didn't adjust their practices to Commons standard naming principles yet – maybe, now in 2017, it is to late to remedy it. --ŠJů (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ŠJů: The naming scheme you're advocation for definitely can by no means be considered the standard here on Commons – on the contrary, you could expand your list of exceptions to include all countries if it wasn't for the Czech Republic: With the exception of a few U.S. train station categories, which were named [station name] ([system name] station) to match the former English Wikipedia naming conventions, and the Czech Republic, I don't know of a single country that widely has the object type in disambiguation brackets. In fact, the English Wikipedia now afaik uses [station name] [object type] for train stations in every country, including the Czech Republic. That is because article titles as well as category names should reflect common (English-language) terminology used to refer to the respective subject – to give an example, someone standing in a train station named Anytown wouldn't say "I'm currently waiting in Anytown", but "I'm currently waiting in the Anytown train station". Also, disambiguation in brackets ought to be used only where a category name without it would be ambiguous – for example, the category of the Vösendorf-Siebenhirten train station (named after two different geographical entities) would have to be named Vösendorf-Siebenhirten without any further disambiguation if your proposed scheme was to be implemented. FDMS 4 19:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FDMS4: "Vösendorf-Siebenhirten" is primarily a combination of two local names. Whatever common for the two places can have such an adjective specification or a name. The name of the railway station is just a secondary meaning of this verbal collocation. However, as we can see in the railway timetable or in the list of stations or on the station name board, the name of the station is just "Vösendorf-Siebenhirten", not "Vösendorf-Siebenhirten train station" nor "Vösendorf-Siebenhirten railway station" nor "Bahnhof Vösendorf-Siebenhirten". The station name has its strictly bordered and hardly stabilized form. Naturally, in not-railway context, it should be supplemented by any specifying word, but the word is really a disambiguation, not a part of the station name. Of course, if such a specification is an integral part of the station name ("Berlin Hauptbahnhof"), none additional disambiguation is needed to be added. Standard disambiguation in brackets is the best way how to avoid ambiguity or comical macaronic mixtures. The proper name is in original, the common disambiguation in English, the first one strictly separated from the second one. Unfortunately, you are right that categories of stations in English-speaking countries are not the right example of compliance with general naming and disambiguation principles of Commons, and some other countries follow such a bad model. Using German, French (and other?) non-English words for disambiguation. --ŠJů (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FDMS4: I can't see your point, that universality can be reached using "train station", unless breaking the consensus that there are no train stations in Britain.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gürbetaler: The fact that train stations in some countries are not called "train stations" by local inhabitants doesn't mean that the train stations are not train stations there. I think, it's not so difficult to understand. Absurd exaggerated arguments are not good for construcive discussion. The naming principle of universality consists among others in the rule that we use identical English-language term for all countries, not locally specific synonymic terms different for every country. Here is a situation that we can choose from two synonymous terms. Both of them are correct, both of them are understandable and unambiguous. The main argument for choose "train station" is existing substantial prevalence of this form in Commons category names. We can consider which of the two forms is better worldwide and whether some of arguments for the second version is so weighty to justify massive rename of 10000s or 100000s categories from all countries, even if the version "railway station" can be a bit better. Your proposal to use British English for all European railways and American English for both the A-continents is in obvious discrepancy with Commons naming policy, and maybe the demarcation is also very random and nonsense for non-English-language countries. It can be said by your logic that "there are no railway stations in non-Anglophone countries" because local inhabitats don't use British English to call their Bahnhöfe, nádraží, dworce, garas, vakzals, kolodvors etc. Generally, I have nothing against choose of "railway station" for the whole category tree, if also the American contributors will accept such a consensus (as they accepted it at en:wiki) and if somebody will implement such mass rename thoroughly, effectively and correctly. But I have doubts that such a big transformation is necessary and worthy of such amoung of work. --ŠJů (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I originally proposed to use different terms for Europe and other continents, this was only to find a clear rule. I accept that this proposition doesn't help the universality and will not maintain it. Going back to the idea of universality, there is only one term left, which is accepted in all English speaking areas of the world and that's "railway station". So we have two possibilities left:
maintain the chaos with "railway station" and "train station"
"Here is a situation that we can choose from two synonymous terms. Both of them are correct, both of them are understandable and unambiguous." ( 1 to that from my side)
"Going back to the idea of universality, there is only one term left, which is accepted in all English speaking areas of the world and that's "railway station"."
Repeating a disputed claim over and over again isn't helpful … Of course universality wouldn't exclude Britain, I have yet to be convinced that there would be any unsolvable problems if we were to use train station there as well as suggested above. FDMS 4 07:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ŠJů: That's not how disambiguations work – if the mere possibility of another subject using the same name was enough of a reason for disambiguation, we'd have to disambiguate literally every category name. There's no other notable subject using the name Vösendorf-Siebenhirten, so there couldn't be any disambiguation according to all disambiguation guidelines I'm aware of. "Naturally, in not-railway context, it should be supplemented by any specifying word" – that's the point! This is a non-railway context. We constantly mix official names with English descriptors or attributes, see Category:Supermarkets in Prague and tons of other categories. If this was a Tesco wiki, Category:Tesco supermarkets in Prague would probably be called simply supermarkets in Prague, but we're not a Tesco wiki, and there's no point in making up less readable category names like Tesco (supermarkets in Prague) just to fulfil one's desire to separate official names from descriptors and attributes. We're not a database like Wikidata (where I often do remove descriptors from labels), and we simply cannot separate official terminology from English descriptors and attributes if we want to keep our goal of having user-friendly easily readable category names (that consist of no more than one string, maybe structured data will change that in the future). FDMS 4 07:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FDMS4: Try to understand that "Tesco" is a proper name of the shop chain. There is standardly used disambiguation in brackets for such chains: en:Billa (supermarket)en:Globus (hypermarket), en:Iceland (supermarket), en:Penny (supermarket), en:Spar (retailer), if they label the subject itself, the chain or the organization itself (even though the disambiguation word is not fittingly chosen). However, if we use the name in plurar, we can use rather the adjective form: "Globus supermarkets in ...", for a specific shop we use rather the shop name with a geographical disambiguation ("Kaufland (Dolní Chabry)", no need to use "Kaufland shop (Dolní Chabry)").
Similarly in case of train, tram or bus stations and stops: in case of plural we can use the adjective form in English (Berlin train stations, train stations in Vienna). But one specific station we should name by his exact proper name, and separate the proper name from the disambiguation using brackets. As stations commonly have their name identical with name of the place, such a disambiguation is needed because the station is secondary (derivative) meaning of the name. Just in cases where the equivalent of the word "station" or "stop" is incorporated to the station name (Berlin Hauptbanhof, Plzeň zastávka, Budapest-Nyugati pályaudvar), the disambiguation is not needed. Similarly in cases of street names: if the common word as street, Strasse, ulice, ulička, třída, Gasse etc. is incorporated in the oficially codified street name as their part, it should be used in original (not translated from the original local language), but if the codified street name is without such a word, it can be added as a disambiguation in brackets (if needed) and in English. That apply in modern countries where street names are strictly stabilized and codified in official registers (as here) - historically, the usage was more variable. --ŠJů (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gürbetaler: I understand that this controversy blocks and hamper unification and standardization of German-language station category names now. The argument "there are not train stations in the UK" is a bit infantile. But the argument to unify the terminology with en:wikipedia is IMHO very relevant, because Commons category names are often copied from Wikipedia article names and a needless distinction between en:Wikipedia and Commons will cause a permanent tendency to disturb the integrity of Commons names. To achieve a meta-project universality can be wanted especially by those users who emphasize universality within Commons. If the term "railway station" is acceptable for US more than the term "train station" for UK users, the megaturn is thinkable for the future, and the consensus can drift slowly to the form "railway station". Especially active US contributors should be adressed to achieve such a consensus. --ŠJů (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ja die supergscheiten, die fangen den Unsinn schon wieder an. Ich glaube Commons ist wieder ein Projekt wo man sich bald verabschieden kann, weil sich andere sehr wichtig nehmen. :-( --K@rl (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC) PS: Das betrifft hauptsächlich @FDMS4: für mich EOD. --K@rl (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Danke für den Beitrag. Leider gelingt es mir nicht, dessen Sinn und Aussage herauszufinden, genau genommen verstehe ich nur Bahnhof ... also ich meine natürlich railway station.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do with countries where English is not commonly spoken. Perhaps let's go with the variant of English in which the likelihood of translation is greater, and use "Railway station" (British) for the Old World and "Railroad station" (American) for the New World? "Train station" seems to be a fairly new expression, almost a neologism, and - looking at the above - seems not to be very well liked among educated people. I remember that in the UK this term was still referred to as "kiddie talk" less than 5 years ago. Anyway, for countries with strong British influence auch as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, and a few more, I should suggest that the station categories for these countries should be renamed into "Railway stations in ...", too. Addendum: I notice that station-specific files and subcategories for these countries usually refer to the term "railway station" anyway. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To conclude, there is a majority agreeing that railway station seems to be the more universal term. Thus it seems to be reasonable to define new (sub)categories with this term and eventually move the categories at least for countries, where this term is in normal use but also for not English speaking countries without "strong" British influence. However, we should not move any category concerning the U.S. and Canada, unless there is a consensus between the users of these countries.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Die Grundregel ist: Offizieller Bahnhofsname, wie er angeschrieben ist und im Fahrplan erscheint "railway station" (soweit erforderlich). Von daher heisst die Kategorie klar "Praha hlavní nádraží". Beim gare d'Austerlitz bin ich mir nicht sicher, wie die offizielle Bezeichnung wirklich lautet, weil die SNCF in ihren Fahrplanauskünften das verschieden darstellt und im DB-Fahrplan erscheint er als "Paris Austerlitz". Nicht einfach! "Wien Hauptbahnhof" ist hingegen klar, aber Bregenz heisst nur Bregenz, also muss die Kategorie "Bregenz railway station" lauten.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bregenz ist nicht ganz korrekt er heißt Bregenz Bahnhof im Gegensatz zu Haltestelle Bregenz Hafen. In Scotty wird er auf alle Fälle so bezeichnet. --K@rl (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: wenn du nach der IBNR-Suche gehst, dann müsste der Hauptbahnhof Wien Hbf (Autoreisezuganlage), Wien Hbf (Bahnsteige 1-2) und Wien Hbf heißen - ist auch nihct wirklcih sinnvoll. --K@rl (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Offenbar ist Scotty nicht ganz zuverlässig mit offiziellen Namen, oder die ÖBB sieht das "nicht so eng". Sucht man Verbindungen mit dem DB- oder SBB-Fahrplan wird immer nur "Bregenz" ausgegeben. Ebenso ist der Bahnhof selbst angeschrieben. Auch die Fahrplandarstellung von Wien Hbf entspricht nicht der offiziellen Namensgebung, die auf "Wien Hauptbahnhof" lautet:
Scotty ist die offizielle Seite der ÖBB und wenn ich einen ÖBB Bahnhof suche, dann werde ich doch nicht einen ausländischen Fahrplan nehmen ;-) --K@rl (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Außerdem wird bei den Tafeln am Bahnhof außer beim Hauptbahnhof Bahnhof dazugeschrieben, da auch nicht zwischen Haltestelle und Bahnhof unterschieden wird - Scotty schreibt nur Bahnhof siehe Perchtoldsdorf. --K@rl (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Offiziell heisst nicht notwendigerweise korrekt! Mein Punkt ist, dass Scotty gewisse Namen anders ausgibt als sie am Bahnhof selbst angeschrieben sind. Dies einfach als Tatsachenfeststellung.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, ein HJahr wäre um und geändert hat sich nichts, außer dass ein User, der das ganze vom Zaun gebrochen hat, einen Wirbel reingebracht hat und nix mehr stimmt. Meines dafürhaltens, sollte der das ganze wieder rückgängig machen und nicht die anderen mit Arbeiten eindecken, denn von der haben wird doch genug. --K@rl (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any usefull argument to withdraw anything. The discussion here finally turned around English or German words in categories. At this point, the rule is clear: original names English description. That's not specific for railway stations but a general rule. But I read that not everybody can write in English.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now a half of decade is away and there not a solution - till when we can repair these categories? ---- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 09:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: There is "no consensus" but this had been resolved in the way that both terms may exist: Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom or Category:Train stations in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Too broad and meaningless category, located in a crowded parent category. The subcategories can easily be found through their other parent categories. The fact that there is a Category:Water in religion is no argument for the existence of this one, as claimed here. Water in religion is itself of dubious value, and Water in Islam has to be justified on its own merits, anyway. There is no theological significance for water in Islam. We could just as well create categories like Water in Calvinism, Water among Cutlerites, Sand in Islam, Milk in Islam etc. Jonund (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Water in itself doesn't have any theological significance in Islam. In order to be helpful, a category should have some value other than what the subcategories have. Grouping subcategories together could be such a value, but only if they need to be grouped together. We don't create parent categories for everything that has something in common (for instance Category:Gardens in Christianity would not be a good idea, even though Garden of Eden and Gethsemane are important in Christianity).
All the categories mentioned above are of dubious value and don't support this one. Please, note that the basic problem is a crowded parent category. Otherwise, a meaningless category would not be much of a problem, but it's hard to get an overview of Category:Islam. --Jonund (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cat seems reasonable to me. A lot about categories like this is about letting people sanely navigate down the category tree and avoiding having a parent category (in this case Category:Water in religion) get too cluttered. 'Keep. - Jmabel ! talk18:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. There is, however, still no engaging of my arguments.
The parent category doesn't need to be cluttered, since there would be no reason to add the subcategories to Category:Water in religion. They have other, satisfactory parent categories. If they still are added, they can easily be removed. The cluttering of Islam, on the other hand, is a real problem. Jonund (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is that obvious? That seems to me to mean that my arguments are easily countered. You have neither shown them to be weak or presented new reasons for keeping. Jonund (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with the merge, if there's enough valid content for the emotion category. I see this file that just has the word "calm" on a sign: is that how we'd decide what would go in the category? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: You've got a point, although I think the category was added to the protest photo automatically. I moved everything related to wind to the wind category, and we're not left with much that's worth categorizing by Category:Calm (emotion). Maybe it's better to delete? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Historicist architecture seems to be specific for Romantic era and the two categories are difficult to differentiate. However, sometimes is distinguished "Romantic historicism" from "Strict historicism" – and "Late historicism" (changing to Eclecticism and Art Nouveau). However practically, Category:Romantic architecture appears as duplicate of Category:Historicist architecture category. Can one of them be a subcategory of the other? I'm not sure. --ŠJů (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)--ŠJů (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This should be moved to Wells, Somerset per W:WP:UKPLACE as there is also a ward in Worcestershire. Category:Wells, Somerset is currently a redirect and needs to be deleted to make way for this move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, I wasn't proposing to create a cat for the ward, just to rename it due to the existence of the ward and because of UKPLACE, Category:Wells, England would still redirect to Wells, Somerset as the primary target. By the way unparished areas are sometimes categorized by ward, see Ipswich (Category:Sprites, Suffolk) for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Generally, we disambiguate places in England by the ceremonial county, both here and on English Wikipedia. There are a small number of places disambiguated by England, but these are almost entirely county towns sharing the same name as the ceremonial county, such as Category:Lincoln, England and Category:York, England. There seems no reason why Wells should be dealt with in this way. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already mentioned in a pre-existing discussion at the Village Pump (see there for full details) but nominated here as a representative example of the issue to draw attention and generate further discussion and feedback.
Short version; this is a typical example at the bottom of a hierarchy which has numerous levels and is (IMHO) overly complex, probably unmaintainable and too specific to be of practical use. Ubcule (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The actual images- taken mainly by the same person who created the categories (User:ComputerHotline)- are generally of very high quality. I have no problem with those.
Delete Exceptionally detailed to the point of absurdity. Refining categories so that one category holds an intersection of two broader categories is normally a good idea, but as noted by Ubcule, this takes the concept so far that it's too specific to be of practical use. In general, I'd favor deleting similar categoreis. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't typically deal with this kind of issue here, so I'll use en:wp terminology. Delete the category and upmerge the contents to the ancestors; I use "ancestors" because the parents are also problematic. But since I'm not quite sure what the best ancestor categories would be, let me imagine that this is closed as "do what Nyttend says, and suggest a process to follow:
Category is put "on hold", with nothing done at the moment
Similar categories for image settings, with long, complicated names and extremely specific scopes, are nominated for deletion
If these nominations don't result in the deletion of this category's parents, upmerge the contents of this category to the parents
If these nominations do result in deletion, upmerge the contents to categories such as "Taken with D300", "Taken with Hoya ND1000", etc., or whatever the names are for those topics
This way, we don't end up moving the images to categories that are then deleted quickly: we move the images to categories with basic scopes or to categories that have just gotten kept at a deletion discussion. By the way, I should have said this earlier: a major problem with categories of this sort is the names themselves. Why put the components of the name in the order that was chosen, instead of something else? Why use plus signs, which are unusual for this purpose? Besides being so very long, the category name doesn't "automatically" make sense; it's understandable, but there's no obvious reason why the same concept couldn't be expressed with "camera PRO1 filters ND1000 filter", for example. As a result, the name just isn't memorable at all, and it's consequently much less useful. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's very informative, thanks. This was meant as a test case, so I was anticipating that the immediate parent/grandparent categories (at least) would also be deleted and hadn't planned on moving stuff into them, at least not permanently.
There's no hurry here anyway; the categories are a couple of years old, so I'm sure I can wait until someone closes it, or adds more feedback. Ubcule (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the en:wiki, en:Category:Seats of local government covers subcategories as en:Category:City and town halls in Argentina. I.e., town halls and city halls are categorized together and not distinguished. That exactly corresponds to the category redirect at Commons. In Commons categorization, "town halls" categories incude city halls too. There is no relevant distinction between the two terms, and as I can see, the term "town hall" is more universal than the term "city hall". Of course, specific terms and distinctions can vary by country. --ŠJů (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I just did some work where I separated city, town, and, yes, village hall categories for US states and put them under the relevant municipal building categories. (I didn't create any new xxx hall categories, just organized existing ones.) Before that, the municipal building categories were redirects to the town hall categories, and the xxx hall categories contained each other. I still need to go back and clean up the content, though. My thinking was:
City/town/village halls are not the only kinds of municipal buildings, so the municipal building categories should not redirect to them.
If there are separate categories for city, town, and/or village halls, they should not contain each other because cities do not include towns, etc. They can certainly link to each other in a hatnote.
I wouldn't have a problem putting xxx halls into combined categories if the category names reflected that they were combined. Maybe "municipal halls"? I wouldn't like the cat name to list specific settlement types, because as soon as we do that, we'll find a hall for some different kind of settlement. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A combined category sounds like a good idea. If they're broken up they can also be miscategorized. City halls pictures put in the town hall category, town halls in villages. And then there's unincorporated communities. Do those even have halls.? --Ebyabe (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Illinois: typical 19th-century township hall in foreground; typical 20th-century township hall buildings in background City, village, and town/township are usually separate municipal forms in the United States; each usually has its own government seat. I think there are two reasons that distinction might or might not make sense on Commons, at least in some locations:
On average, city halls would be the largest office buildings, village halls the smaller office buildings, and township halls (which often take care of rural roads) are often more like maintenance depots with a couple offices inside. So each category would tend to collect a lot of buildings of similar function. But there is quite a bit of overlap. Before the mid-20th-century, a village (small urban) hall, a township (rural) hall, and a one-room schoolhouse often looked identical. In some northeastern states, the "town" performs both very urban and very rural functions in those states there might be no visible distinction between town halls and city/village halls. So whether the distinction makes sense on Commons may depend on the state.
It's sometimes awkward to refer to a "town hall" when the government is explicitly not a town. Since city/villages overlap townships in places, the "city hall" is often a different building than the "town hall" nearby. (In some places, the city/village and the township cooperate to share a building, though.)
I think there are other differences in other countries: For example, in the UK, a village hall is a community meeting hall, not often a seat of government. I note that Category:Village halls has existed since 2010. A community meeting hall doesn't necessarily have a government office in it. --Closeapple (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm entirely in favor of one category tree for city/village/town halls, and I don't have a strong preference of what we call it. They serve essentially the same purpose, regardless of how the unit of government is named. There's city hall near my home that has "Village Hall" carved in its pediment, because the municipality was a village that later became a city. So, call it Category:City halls or Category:Town halls or Category:City and town halls or something else sensible, but please, please don't use the ridiculous en:Category:Seats of local government, which is likely to be confused with categories like Category:County seats in the United States. (I do not, however, support one particular admin's heavy-handed attempts to enforce the status quo.) - Eureka Lott13:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would work. It would mix the halls with other kinds of local government buildings, including general offices that aren't the actual halls (permitting facilities, parks and recreation facilities, etc.), jails, police stations, courthouses, and probably others. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Auntof6: I just thought of that too: The wording "local government buildings" might also tend to attract other subcategories like maybe "local police stations" or "public fire departments", but that's not necessarily bad, as long as users don't get strange and assume that all fire and ambulance stations are government, for example. It might be confusing if all public buildings end up being put there just because they're owned by the government, though. Of course, we already have that with Category:Village halls, in which the U.S. ones are usually straightforward village offices and/or council chambers/boardrooms, UK ones, being community rooms, are government-owned but whether they are government-occupied depends on which sense of "occupied" one means. Then on "town hall" in much of the Midwestern U.S. we have those buildings discussed earlier, which are nominally the township building seat, and the township board does usually meet there, but on a daily basis it's mainly a maintenance depot — though to be fair, the township road supervisor is usually a full-time job with his office there also, and in many townships that's usually the only full-time elected office, so I guess it's an administrative seat on a daily basis also. --Closeapple (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC) (timestamped later than response, which was more like 06:00 — oops!)[reply]
I hope this discussion isn't going to just die and languish. I don't like how many states just have Town halls and if I try to create City halls than an admin goes and undoes all my work. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to revert these shitty actions whenever I get the chance. There are too many of these happening lately. ----DanTD (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion link really should go on all subcategories, but I've been pretty busy. Maybe tagging the categories with the CfD should be a quick bot request; the bot probably would tag the categories once consensus happens also. --Closeapple (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know someone that can run a bot job to tag this stuff? The "Town halls" category tree in the US and UK should be uncontroversial to tag, but re-creating the "City halls", "Township halls", and "Village halls" tree with the CfD notice attached might annoy those who think their speedy-deletes override discussion tags. --Closeapple (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there should be a bot to do the job, unless the existing and previous categories are preserved. ----DanTD (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it may be good to post a guide on which states have differentiated municipalities that are called "villages" and which ones are not. For the ones that do, there are subcategories "Villages in XXX state" and so on, and for the ones that don't, redirect to "Cities in XXX State" or "Towns in XXX State". WhisperToMe (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usually places designated as "villages" in the U.S. are incorporated communities. Remember that the U.S. has many unincorporated areas, so there needs to be a distinction between incorporated and unincorporated areas. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish Nyttend and his supporters would understand this. Again I must reiterate; Town Halls, City Halls, Village Halls and Borough Halls ARE NOT THE SAME THINGS. Therefore the claims that the other categories are duplicates are false, and the enforcement of these false edits are morally wrong. -----DanTD (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure if this discussion has died a death, but a compromise solution would be to create an umbrella category, similar to what has been done for years on the English language Wikipedia, called Category:City and town halls. It's true that many city halls have always been in cities for city councils, but many more were built prior to a place getting city status(and quite a few continue to be known as Town Hall. I think Wikimedia is too anarchic and unmonitored to stop people 'mis-categorising' some things. Sionk (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Borough halls — for buildings of borough councils and non-government buildings named "borough hall".
Municipal buildings — for buildings of municipalities or other lowest-level governments.
City and town halls — for buildings of city and town councils, especially if there is no explicit distinction between city and town halls. Non-government buildings named "city hall" or "town hall" may also belong to this category.
City halls — for buildings of city councils and non-government buildings named "city hall".
Town halls — for buildings of town councils and non-government buildings named "town hall".
Village halls — for buildings of village councils and non-government buildings named "village hall".
Closing the 7-year-old discussion as it died out too early. The discussion has a rough consensus to redefine city halls, town halls and village halls. However, there were arguments and counterarguments on how they would be redefined, and various users had proposed categories like City and town halls, Municipal buildings and Local government buildings. In order to compromise with the arguments, I have defined Local government buildings as buildings of all sub-provincial governments (i.e. "local governments"), and Municipal buildings covers city halls, town halls and village halls together. The non-government public buildings with "city hall", "town hall", "village hall" etc. in their names can be covered under the respective category regardless of their function. Happy editing and uploading! --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Oppose It's definitely not the same thing. An invoice includes an amount that has to be paid, a receipt documents the amound that actually has been paid. --WolfD59 (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralThemightyquill, OlEnglish, WolfD59, for me either solution is good as long as it's a clear, effective, self-explanatory and unambiguous one. I do not master English language to such a level that allows me to determine which solution is the best; anyway a thing must be said and this is that whatever agreement is reached about the said category's name the local "by country" subcategories shall be moved to be consistent in naming with the main category. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)14:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although in the last CfD, OlEnglish did say "It's all the same thing" that wasn't the nominator's rationale. Philafrenzy said: "Invoices should be merged with Bills and Receipts to form one category of "Invoices, bills and receipts" due to the significant overlap in these types of document. For instance many invoices also include a receipt, and a bill is often just another name for an invoice." I don't think they are all the same, but I do think there is likely to be significant overlap in the images. I guess I don't see the problem with the current category. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they are not all the same legally, the difficulty is if you see a scan of one of these it's often impossible to tell which type it is and some documents change from being bills to receipts on payment. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: closing stale discussion. Most agree that invoices and bills are the same thing, but not receipts, although the difference would be hard to tell. But for obvious cases, there is also the subcategory:Receipts). --P 1 9 9✉17:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi. This is not a category for articles media, but a category for a meta project on fr-Wikipedia. There is no point to translate this category title in English, as people using it are only French speaking Wikimedians. Can we close this discussion? Jules* (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can we define which Cats and Files should be categorized in this cat? Because I have a feeling everybody is putting everything inside which has just a glimps of counter terrorism. Sanandros (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: closing discussion. No admin action necessary here: just add the explanatory note and do regular category maintenance (no different than other broadly-named categories). --P 1 9 9✉17:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Robert Falcon" is not a given name, it is two names. Given name categories should be for single names. This category is a result of using a template that doesn't work right the way it was used here. Auntof6 (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we would. Thanks for pointing out some of the others. I've suggested elsewhere that the template that assigned these categories be changed so that it doesn't assign multiple-name categories. That should help keep these from being created. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done by 1) subst that {{Mbyname}} and then fix the cats manually. But I don't even understand the problem with the double-name-cat. His name is "Robert Falcon". Why cant be there a category for it? --JuTa13:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JuTa: We're looking for the template to assign the separate categories so that we don't have to manually fix each of the many cases. There are quite a few (I made a list not long ago), not only using the men by name template but also using the corresponding women by name template. Is it possible to change the templates so that the individual given names are categorized separately when coded the way they are now (separated by spaces)? IMO it would be fine if it categorized only the first name, but that hasn't been discussed.
If we fix this by adding a pipe between given names instead of a space, the template would need to look for more than two given name parameters. We have categories like Category:Hilary Rudolph Robert Blood and others with three. I don't know if there are any with more. It would be ideal if the template parsed by spaces instead of pipes (partly because people are now used to coding the template parameter with spaces), but in any case what we're looking for is not to have multi-part given name categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the template should be substed anyhow. But in my eyes it is currently working fine. I dont see a reason why there shouldn't be categories like Category:Anna Maria (given name) or similar. The people have the name "Anna Maria Whatever", so why not categorizing them together to make it easier for people looking i.e. for a specific Anna Maria, but they dont remember the surname. Otherwise they have to browse through Category:Anna (given name) and/or Category:Maria (given name), which is much harder to find the one they looking for. --JuTa17:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JuTa: The issue is that something like "Anna Maria" is not a given name; it is two separate given names. If you're looking for "Anna Maria", to use your example, you can find it alphabetically either in the given name category or among all categories. (In fact, the latter is better because not all categories for people are categorized by given name.) If you're looking for a given name that isn't the first name, having categories by multiple names doesn't help. So having the given name categories with more than one part doesn't actually do much either way.
I agree that the discussion isn't finished yet, but I don't recall making any edits related to it. What did you find that I changed? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All peoples categories are sorted by surname, not given name, that makes it hard to find a sprecific Anna Maria within more than 1000 other Marias.
You shouldnt find any double given names within Category:Male names or Category:Female names. They are all sub-cats of the single given names. Some weeks ago I checked and corrected that. Might be there are some new or I missed some.
And if I only remember the second given name, and not the first given name nor the surname of a person, which should IMHO rerely happen. I can go the the second given names cat and browse though it and its subcats. But in this case I normaly remember some other characteristics of that person like he was a french chemist or similar and can have a look into Category:Chemists from France if I can find him. --JuTa19:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think a comparison with Anna Maria is not useful, as there are some given named combinations that people actually go by, such as Anna Maria (or Anne-Marie). The use of non-hypenated double given names is more common in some places (Scandinavian countries) than others. In the English speaking world, it's very uncommon for people, especially men, to introduce themselves as "Hello, I'm William John" even if their full name is William John Brown. It's highly unlikely that Category:Robert Falcon (given name) will ever have another sub-category Then we have the added problem of en:Spanish naming customs with two family names but only one is commonly used. Surely, Francisco Franco shouldn't be in Category:Franco Bahamonde (surname) but in Category:Franco (surname). Similarly, I don't see why it's useful to have a Category:George Herbert Walker for Category:George H. W. Bush.
I think you make valid points about someone looking for a specific Anna Maria or a specific Dag Erik, so I'm wary of Auntof6's suggestion of parsing the spaces (even if that would help fix what must be a large number of places where mbyear has been filled out like this). Parsing with a pipe would allow people to be specific about which names belong or don't belong together. That way, if Hilary Rudolph Robert Blood goes by Hilary Rudolf, that can be a separate category from Robert.
And please, JuTa, while I'm okay with you reverting my edits to the category and "refilling it" (with the one sub-category), I hope you're not insinuating that I incorrectly acted too soon when I deleted the category or . The discussion has been open since August. This should have been done a long time ago, and the only reason discussion here is still ongoing is because I pinged you here instead of asking about the template on its talk page.- Themightyquill (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have unfortunately a big backlog in open categories for discussion back to 2011/10. Maybe you need to be patient even in this case. PS: I will (of corse) not decide this case, because I am clearly a party here. regards. --JuTa20:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The Lemma of Francos category is Category:Francisco Franco. So he will go under Franco and not Franco Bahamonde. The Lemma should alway the most common name for the specific person. And the given and surname cats should reflect the lemma of the persons category. If a cat is not running under the most common name of a person, the cat should be renamed anyhow. --JuTa20:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stale discussion. Definitely Delete. Or later we have monsters like "Anna Maria Eva (given name)" or "Edith Maria Christina (given name)", not to mention billion variants of Anna Maria, Anna Marit, Anna Mari, Anna Mary, Anna Marii, Anna Margit, Anna Margaritha cases--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Empty, deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree, 
Delete. --Achim (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Support renaming to Category:The Western Dvina River (Sapunov) using v instead of w to be consistent with en:Daugava and cat name Category:Books of Alexey Sapunov. --Achim (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: I suggest to move the other way round as the vast majority of subsubcats of Category:Nature reserves in Poland uses Nature reserve instead of Rezerwat przyrody. --Achim (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
12:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Strong oppose It's venn diagram, Jochen, but not as we know it (it is not about sets). The concept is serious and there are quite a lot of images in the category and its hypocategories (subcategories) that seem potentially usefull. There is a clear distinction between these files and the general concept of venn diagrams. So, just keep this as separate category, as a hypo(/sub)category of Venn diagrams and of Logic diagrams and of Boolean algebra. --Paulbe (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment From de:Mengendiagramm#Johnston-Diagramme, I got the impression that a Venn diagram is called "Johnston diagram" when applied to propositional logic. The article is not very clear about what can be done with them, but I guess, some propositional simplicifations and proofs can be achieved in a graphical way.
Info Bots are taking care to remove the Category. Please do NOT run cat-a-lot on this task! --Krd 13:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: No consensus. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Neutral Themightyquill, OlEnglish, WolfD59, for me either solution is good as long as it's a clear, effective, self-explanatory and unambiguous one. I do not master English language to such a level that allows me to determine which solution is the best; anyway a thing must be said and this is that whatever agreement is reached about the said category's name the local "by country" subcategories shall be moved to be consistent in naming with the main category. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)