Commons:Categories for discussion

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:CFD

Skip to table of contents
Nuvola apps tree question.svg

This page provides a centralized place to discuss the naming convention of categories. Currently the naming conventions for categories are spread over the following pages:


Listing a single category on this "Categories for discussion" page[edit]


Add {{subst:cfd}} tag:

  • Add the following code to the top of the category page.

The easiest way for doing the next steps II, III and IV: After saving the category with {{subst:cfd}} the template will have created a link on cyan background. Click it (for step II), the template will create a subpage with instructions for editing and links (you must open it in new tabs or windows) for further steps.


Create a subpage of "Categories for discussion" :

  • Enter the name of the category that you wish to nominate for discussion, click on "Create the subpage", and follow the instructions given there.

(eg Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/02/Category:Comics)


Add a link to the sub-page in the "Discussion Request Log":

  • To make your discussion visible here you have to add the newly created sub-page to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08. The log is sorted by date. Add the following code at the bottom without erasing the existing requests. Remember to save the page.
{{Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08/Category: CATEGORY-NAME }}

(Where CATEGORY-NAME is the name of the category you tagged with {{cfd}}.)
(eg {{Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/02/Category:Comics}})


Notify the creator with {{cdw}} tag:

  • Sometimes it makes sense to notify the creator of a category on their talk page. Use the notify text suggest in the box at the top of the sub-page created in (II) above.
{{subst:cdw|Category:CATEGORY-NAME}} --~~~~

(Where CATEGORY-NAME is the name of the category you tagged with {{cfd}}.)
(eg {{subst:cdw|Category:Comics}} --~~~~)

Listing multiple categories on this "Categories for discussion" page[edit]

Perform all the operations above for the first category, then tag all the other related categories with

{{subst:cfd|Category: FIRST-CATEGORY-NAME }}

(eg {{subst:cfd|Category:Comics}} to Category:Comic strips)

Note that if you want to have modifications in this list appear in your watchlist, for each new month and for each new item in the list you want to watch, you have to open the item for editing and click the watch tab.

Note that the {{cdw}} tag notifying the creators is not fully adapted to multiple discussion.

Closing a discussion[edit]

Typically, only users experienced in category discussions should close a discussion. However, if the discussion has led to a very clear consensus, other users should feel free to do so.

The following is the normal process to close a discussion. Not all steps are necessarily required nor need they be done on the same day, but in general this is the appropriate order.

  1. Generally, wait at least two weeks since the discussion was started.
  2. Assess the discussion, write a conclusion on the subpage; use "----" on a line above your conclusion to separate it from the general discussion.
  3. Add {{cfdh}} and {{cfdf}} to the subpage
  4. If necessary, make the relevant changes to categories (e.g. rename the categories, request the category renames at User talk:Category-bot, add {{category redirect|preferred name}} to the no longer used category name or synonyms, add {{bad name|preferred name}} to categories renamed for misspellings and the like)). Alternatively, wait for the initiator to do it
  5. Remove the cfd notice from the categories pages and cross-reference the discussion on the category talk page(s) if the associated categories still exist. E.g., if the category was nominated for deletion:
    {{kept|2=Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/Category:Drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen|Categories for discussion (10/2009)}}
    or in general:
    {{Archive box|*[[Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/Category:Drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen|Categories for discussion (10/2009)]]}}.
  6. Remove the subpage from the month page (e.g. Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08)
  7. Add the subpage to the month page at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive.
  8. Update category descriptions or Commons:Categories if needed.

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced editors.
Please remove this notice if it won't be needed in the future.

Boarisch | বাংলা | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Svenska | Türkçe | 中文 | +/−


Current Requests[edit]

August 2014[edit]

Category:Grave of Rousseaux (Père-Lachaise, division 57)[edit]

Duplicate of Category:Grave of Émile Rousseaux. I have merged the Wikidata entries to Q15896226. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thx. I've deleted a category. ~Pyb (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08/Category:Rafter couple found in near Almere

Category:Mexican-American War[edit]


The name of this category is hyphenated when it should contain an En dash, as in Mexican–American War like in the WP mainspace. -- 10:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a huge discussion on the enWP talk page on this topic. It doesn't look at all obvious which version is correct. In light of this, I would prefer keeping the status quo. --rimshottalk 21:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Art of the Mexican-American War[edit]

The name of this category is hyphenated when it should contain an En dash, as in Mexican–American War like in the WP mainspace. -- 11:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion consolidated to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08/Category:Mexican-American War. --rimshottalk 21:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Battles of the Mexican-American War[edit]

The name of this category is hyphenated when it should contain an En dash, as in Mexican–American War like in the WP mainspace. -- 11:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion consolidated to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08/Category:Mexican-American War. --rimshottalk 21:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Maps of the Mexican-American War[edit]

The name of this category is hyphenated when it should contain an En dash, as in Mexican–American War like in the WP mainspace. -- 11:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion consolidated to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08/Category:Mexican-American War. --rimshottalk 21:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:People of the Mexican-American War[edit]

The name of this category is hyphenated when it should contain an En dash, as in Mexican–American War like in the WP mainspace. -- 11:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion consolidated to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08/Category:Mexican-American War. --rimshottalk 21:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Empty category. Leyo 00:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, there are two places with this name, so this would normally be a case for disambiguation. We have only one image, though, and they share one article at enWP. Therefore I propose adding a description text and keeping the category. --rimshottalk 08:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
OK. --Leyo 11:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Kept, with a single file and a slightly better description. --rimshottalk 17:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


I'm not sure that this is a useful category, given that it may have quite a wide scope, and that the term is somewhat outdated. If it includes any microprocessor-based computer, then all modern computers would be included, which makes Category:Computers by type less useful. --ghouston (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Although no longer commonly used the term is well understood, by us oldsters at least, to mean a a small computer from before the time computers of the x86 instruction set/IBM PC compatiable/Microsoft OS type became the default standard for personal computing. Although technically you're correct that all computers use microprocessors, the term has as much to do with marketing and the positioning of these systems in the marketplace computers were mainframe, mini and micro; with micro alluding to the fact that they were small and cheap as much as to the fact that they used microprocessers. Also there are multiple articles using the same name in each of the language wikipedias, with this category having also an equivalently named category at Wikipedia, renaming breaks the direct link between how the files are categorised in Commons and how they relate to articles and categories in other projects, this is something we're going to have to think more about as Wikidata "In other projects links" will go active for Commons later this month.--KTo288 (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I remember the days when computers where classified as mainframe/mini/micro. Wikipedia now says microcomputers should be small and inexpensive, in addition to containing microprocessors. Then in the history we've got no action from 1979 until the introduction of the Raspberry Pi in 2012. "Small and inexpensive" isn't a very clear distinction to base a category on. If it's only supposed to contain pre IBM PC compatibles then could the name be changed to something more specific? I can't think of much offhand. Maybe something like "6502-based personal computers" and "Z-80-based personal computers"? Or maybe use Category:1970s personal computers, etc., which already exist? --ghouston (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the lack of a category for an article that exists in Wikipedia is a problem, if it's simply organised differently in Commons. It could be retained anyway as a disambiguation category or redirection. --ghouston (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Peggys Cove[edit]

In 2009 Category:Peggy's Cove was deleted, on the grounds it was redundant due to this category. Wrong choice.

An early US Postmaster General decided no place names in the USA should include an apostrophe. However, Peggy's Cove is in Canada, not the USA and as the following two google searches show, the Government of Nova Scotia used the apostrophe version more than five times as often as the Americanized no apostrophe version. [1] [2] Geo Swan (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree, but also see w:Talk:Peggys Cove, Nova Scotia#Spelling of Name for active discussion. Fungus Guy (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Badner Bahn Old Trams[edit]

"Old Trams" is a very ambiguous term, therefore, I suggest renaming to Historical rolling stock of Badner Bahn. (Not Historical local railway rolling stock of the metropolitan area of Vienna.)    FDMS  4    08:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Drain pipes[edit]

Rename in roof drainage. Drainage of soil is more in Category:Drainage. thx vanGore (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:جمع ما (برنامه تلویزیونی)[edit]

Empty, uncategorized, wrong language, non-latin characters (I would have suggested speedy deletion, but perhaps somebody understands what this is about and can set a redirect) Rudolph Buch (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support deleting. Is there a particular reason you didn't use {{emptypage}} to request speedy deletion as an empty category? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedied, as a mulitilingual project, its okay to keep categories in other languages as redirects to the correct category in English, in this case, after resorting to google and google translate, this category is for a specific Iranian TV show, with no equivalent category to redirect to.--KTo288 (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Russian Saint Nicholas Church (Bucharest)[edit]

Identical to its child category, Category:Biserica Sfântul Nicolae (Rusă), Bucharest‎. They're just two different names for the same building. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

  • So, per policy, the English name should be favored; move images into the parent category & delete the child category. - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done per Jmabel -–⁠moogsi (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Independence Palace[edit]

Looks like a duplicate of Category:Reunification Palace. Keith D (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:James of Bourbon[edit]

El nombre del personaje es Jaime y no James. Ya se creó una categoría denominada Jaime de Borbón y Borbón-Parma, que es la que debería ser utilizada. Otro usuario trasladó la categoría a esta posteriormente. Supone una imposición injustificada de una lengua (el inglés) sobre otra (el español). Chamarasca (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree, according to the English Wikipedia article, the category name should either be Jaime, Duke of Madrid or Jaime de Borbón y de Borbón-Parma. This category was moved from Category:Jaime de Borbón y Borbón-Parma, which I think is the better name. Do note however, that the enWP article has one more de, I can't say which one is correct. --rimshottalk 19:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Supongo que te refieres a la denominación como Jaime de Borbón y de Borbón-Parma. No estoy seguro. En España, la tradición durante un tiempo fue anteponer "de" al primer apellido e "y" al segundo; pero no creo que fuera incorrecto decir "y de". Los aristócratas siempre han sido muy amigos de usar esta corta preposición ante sus apellidos.--Chamarasca (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Forth Bridge (1890) old jpgs[edit]

All images superseded by pngs at Category:Forth Bridge (1890) Jamesx12345 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Trader's mark[edit]

This category has been nominated for deletion as a more relevant category "Merchants' marks (Tibet)" exists. Uray1130 (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mercedes-Benz W203[edit]

remont san blok 23:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you want to discuss? Preferably in English ... --rimshottalk 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No reply -–⁠moogsi (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Boats in New York[edit]

I think this category desperately needs some agreement as to what it should contain. I see another contributor removed Category:Water transport in New York from Category:Tugboats in New York, without any explanation, but presumably because they thought a tugboat is a boat. I suggest that what most people think of as a "boat" is a pleasure craft. I think including working vessels in this category is confusing and unhelpful. Alternately, we could have a specific subcategory, or subcategories for recreational vessels. Geo Swan (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly reasonable request, although there are cases where more than one type of boat can be in the same picture, such as in this one in Patchogue, where a local pleasure craft runs behind a ferry boat from Fire Island. ----DanTD (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Barefoot and pregnant[edit]

This category appears to be a drive-by category created by a user who uploaded a majority of the images here and mirrors something on Flickr. Nevermind that the category should probably be renamed to "Women who are barefoot and pregnant," but it is very demeaning towards women and comes across as a fetish category that does not belong on this site. I would even support deletion of the images within this category because they add nothing particular in value to the category as a whole. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Duplicate of Category:Victoria Bay, VictoriaBaai is merely the afrikaans name Gbawden (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done moved. Ankry (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ranakpur Jain Temple[edit]

There are at least 3 jain temples in Ranakpur: Adinath Temple, Neminath Temple and Parshvanath Temple. "Ranakpur Jain Temple" is too vague. The same holds for its subcategory "Interior of Ranakpur Jain Temple". BrightRaven (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Interior of Ranakpur Jain Temple[edit]

There are at least 3 jain temples in Ranakpur: Adinath Temple, Neminath Temple and Parshvanath Temple. "Ranakpur Jain Temple" is too vague. The same holds for its subcategory "Interior of Ranakpur Jain Temple". BrightRaven (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Finanzamt is a general term not restricted to Germany. Move to Category:Tax offices in Germany Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree, but keep as {{disambiguation}} to Category:Tax offices in Germany, Category:Tax offices in Austria and Category:Tax offices in Switzerland.--Karsten11 (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Also agreed, although category localization is really long overdue. But hey, we got a media viewer now ... --Sebari (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: Please delete also Category:Former Finanzamt (has been replaced by Category:Former tax offices in Germany).--Karsten11 (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

no objections, renamed --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Inaccessible Hammelbanen[edit]

Superfluous because inaccessible tracks are incorporated in the main category Beethoven9 (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Public Art in Stuttgart[edit]

cat is empty, should be deleted Gerd Leibrock (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Octagonal houses[edit]

The term is "octagon house"; see the en:wp article for an example, or the child categories and files such as File:Octagon House, July 2012, Westfield MA.jpg or Category:David Cummins Octagon House. It was previously at the proper title, but Foroa moved it along with many other correctly named titles, and we've had to be cleaning these up for a long time; this discussion is a comparable example. This nomination also includes the child Category:Octagonal houses in the United States and all its state-level subcategories. INeverCry 19:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Well no, I think "octagonal houses" is the more general category of which "octagon houses" is the specific example as referred to in the en:WP article. There are octagonal houses in the UK, but they are not referred to a "octagon houses". Keep Category:Octagonal houses and make Category:Octagon houses a subcategory of it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
INeverCry created this CFD for me due to a weird userrights issue (I wrote the rationale), so it would help if he'd come back and offer an opinion on the nomination, or say that he's neutral. All of these images, as far as I can tell, are indeed octagon houses; it would be silly to have an extra layer of categories for images that don't exist, especially since they can easily go into the octagonal buildings parent category. As far as I know, there haven't even been any images in Octagonal houses, except for File:Octagon-v-square-2.png, which I just removed because it's simply geometric drawings, not a drawing of a house. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I just fulfilled this AN request to help get around the full protection on the cat creating bot's talk. I'm not knowledgable about the topic, so will remain neutral. Thanks. INeverCry 20:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me; thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Places in Ravenna[edit]

Maybe the original intention was to create "Squares in Ravenna" that already exists. AlessioMela (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Buildings in Ravenna by function[edit]

Too much subcat; buildings' function are already subdivided in Buildings in Ravenna AlessioMela (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I considered to be divided into various categories relating to buildings according to the functional characteristics as already present for example in other similar subdivisions (see Category:Buildings in Milan by function) in order to insert some images that were likely to remain in the mother category as "minor" religious buildings that the English language does not have a corresponding and precise term of identification. (in italiano un nostro capitello (che non possiamo tradurre in capital perché in inglese in architettura è solo il capitello parte di una colonna è popolarmente tradotto come Madonnas al pari di edicole votive, crocifissi di montagna ed ogni edificio sorto a scopo religioso più piccolo di un oratorio (che per loro è già difficile distinguere lessicalmente da una cappella). Now, since I do not consider myself to be so obtuse to pretend that it is the only solution to the problem, I refer to the decisions of the community who has always wanted to make his contribution. Otherwise I do not see the need to retrace my steps and reminding you to everyone that a category is not born to be a gallery of images. Thank you for your attention.--Threecharlie (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I see two different topic in your reply:
1) buildings' subdivision;
2) categorization of some minor archit. images.
For the first problem I think we can use just Category:Buildings in Ravenna and it's for this reason that I want to remove "your" cat. It's just because I used a similar subdivisions like Category:Buildings in Rome. We have choosed two different reference points ;-).
For the second problem the solution could be Category:Architectural elements in Ravenna? --AlessioMela (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
1) The use of a category named Buildings in "various geographical context" is to be traced at the origins of and all wikimedia projects that have been developed from that context. IMO The original requirement was to have a container for any generic accommodation or working facility and, to this day, is still needed to better manage the bots that hunt in the various sites as Flikcr & Co., but with a human intervention can be more effectively. If I find or take a picture of a rectory is much more interesting to correlate it with various religious buildings (although in this case is much more similar to a simple home)

but also because the barracks are also residential buildings a sub-categorization for military buildings does not seem a useless categorization.

2) An architectural element is, always IMO, is only a part of a building or/and a street furniture (although at times appear to be little artistic). A simply plaque plaque inserted into a church facade I believe can be an architectural element, as well as a monument, statue, bust, village pump, relief, etc. etc. For extension a palace, villa, theater, church, is a building, not an architectural element. The ultimate solution would be to use a specific source of architecture where to find certain and conclusive definitions; I fear, however, that at the international level is very difficult, because for exempol, some architectural features typical of Italy are not found in other states, such as cantoria, sagrato, and others who do not remember at this time. I hope that sooner or later you will be able to find a text that can regroup and clarify all kinds of world architecture, and from that extract more precise conventions, but remember discussions about the need for definitions popular for not making more and more inaccessible casual user contribution and without a specific instruction. As you surely have noticed, to try an articulate response in English I must resort several times a vocabulary or on line translators, with results, I presume, sometimes ridiculous. ;-)--Threecharlie (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Castles in Ioannina[edit]

Delete as redundant: there is only one "castle" in Ioannina, the Ioannina Castle Constantine 18:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Train interiors in Japan by class[edit]

Nominated by User:Vantey for speedy under bad name, I don't consider that rationale to be valid, and this category qualifies now for speedy empty only because User:Vantey emptied it prior to nomination. It may be considered that this category is not needed, however it does not detract from classification by operating company, which is the primary means of differentiation for the parent category, i.e. its an additional category not a substitute one. Perhaps why it is not seen as useful is that its it categorises vertically into the Japan trains category, but not horizontally by interiors worldwide, this is being rectified. KTo288 (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

To begin with, in Japan, the format name of the rolling stock is not called the "class" in English. It is a "series" or "type" are terms used to it. The category name "by class" is inappropriate decisively.
Next, the series and types of the rolling stock in Japan are very large number, the category across the operator is not practical. In fact, to be a parent category: it does not exist "Category:Trains in Japan by class".
In addition, after it was made on a whim, category members are added little, this category has not been used practically at all.
Therefore, it should be deleted as a "bad name" category. --Vantey (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think Vantey misunderstands the purpose of the category. "Class" here refers to the class of accommodation (i.e. first or second class - or standard/Green class in Japan), not the individual train types. Even if it is not currently used (because it has been emptied by one user), it appears to be a valid and useful category. --DAJF (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. It looks like it was me that misunderstood the purpose of the category, as a look at the comparable category for the UK, Category:Train interiors in the United Kingdom by class, should have revealed. In this case, the absolutely huge number of different train types in Japan will make this rather unwieldy, not to mention that Vantey is right in pointing out that "class" is not really a term normally used to describe Japanese train types, which are mostly classified as "series". --DAJF (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Files uploaded by Josve05a (aviation)[edit]

I don't need this category any more Josve05a (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Children of Cuba[edit]

It seems to me that neither Category:American children at the Guantanamo Naval Base or Category:Haitian children at the Guantanamo Naval Base are really Category:Children of Cuba. I'd like others opinions on how to deal with this. I would be satisfied if this category was renamed Category:Children in Cuba. Geo Swan (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Interiors of Odakyu 3000 series (II)[edit]

Category was emptied by User:Vantey in order to populate the new Category:Interior of Odakyu 3000 series (I) category he created, but the use of the singular form "interior" sounds odd to me (since there are many 3000 series trains), and jars with the parent category Category:Train interiors of Odakyu Electric Railway. I suggest deleting the new category and moving all the files back to the original category. DAJF (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info. For comparison/reference, the sub-categories of the following French and British categories also use the "Train interiors of ..." format. --DAJF (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Interiors of Odakyu 3000 series (I)[edit]

Category was emptied by User:Vantey in order to populate the new Category:Interior of Odakyu 3000 series (I) category he created, but the use of the singular form "interior" sounds odd to me (since there were many 3000 series trains), and jars with the parent category Category:Train interiors of Odakyu Electric Railway. I suggest deleting the new category and moving all the files back to the original category. DAJF (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info. For comparison/reference, the sub-categories of the following French and British categories also use the "Train interiors of ..." format. --DAJF (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Interiors of Odakyu 3100 series[edit]

Category was emptied by User:Vantey in order to populate the new Category:Interior of Odakyu 3100 series category he created, but the use of the singular form "interior" sounds odd to me (since there were many 3100 series trains), and jars with the parent category Category:Train interiors of Odakyu Electric Railway. I suggest deleting the new category and moving all the files back to the original category. DAJF (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info. For comparison/reference, the sub-categories of the following French and British categories also use the "Train interiors of ..." format. --DAJF (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Seconded. According to the corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia, the 3100 series has 7 units (11 carriages each, hence 77 carriages altogether). This support vote also applies to two more similar CfDs: Interiors of Odakyu 3000 series (I) and Interiors of Odakyu 3000 series (II). Yasu (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Albert Weber (artist)[edit]

No Relevance for Wikipedia (see Martin Sg. (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Suspension bridges[edit]

First, I'd like to add this cat - Suspension bridges - to Category:Tensile structures. On w:en:Tensile structure it's understood like this.

Secondly, I'd like to merge Category:Tensile structures with Category:Cable-stayed structures, removing or redirecting Cable-stayed structures

All right? --Sunspeanzler (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

alternative is to create a new cat, that covers all suspension bridges (not just cable-stayed suspension bridges) and all cable structures of buildings. What do you think?

maybe a helping catalog in english and german: --Sunspeanzler (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Chinese literati paintings[edit]

minimalist garden 21:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you want to discuss? --rimshottalk 06:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done, no reason for discussion. --rimshottalk 20:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:British Rail Class 334s by unit[edit]

I believe we've had a discussion before about categories for individual (modern) trains. Except in very exceptional circumstances, no single unit is different from any other and warranting of its own category. That is certainly not the case for these units - 2/3 of them don't even have any files and none has ever done anything noteworthy.

UK trains have systems for categorisation by class, operator, livery and line. While I don't doubt that having the number listed on the filepage is useful, having a category is not useful in my mind - it's unlikely that anyone will ever want a picture of a particular unit, and frankly there's enough category dispersion already (what with the four streams of categorisation). If someone does ever want a photo of 334035, the sensible thing would be to just search for it.

Furthermore, the category names, eg "British Rail Class 334035" are malformed. We use "British Rail" by convention, but it's a class 334, not a class 334035. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think these categories are useful though I would not create categories for which we have no content, On the contrary every unit is physically a different object to the others. whether any of the units has done anything noteworthy is entirely subjective and one cannot know what will happen in the future. The existing category structure for trains in the UK fails in so many ways and is the product of a few people who have not listened to any other users opinions and have railroaded (Forgive that pun) their particular scheme through to the detriment of all other users who wish to use the UK trains categories. Similar category schemes to this exist for aircraft, ships, buses and non UK trains, therefore it is a suitable scheme to have on Commons and is consistent with the ways things are usually done on commons, unlike the existing UK trains category structure which seems to have been designed by someone more at home at Wikipedia. personally I can see no use in having a category for the operator, that would be better placed in the description, the livery category is not of any use when all the units have only ever worn one livery and the line category is only of use if you are familiar with the exact names used here for the many individual lines. I'm afraid these categories are not useful to the majority of users here, they are only useful to a few people who are familiar with them. What should always have been done is a category scheme by number, it is to the majority of users detriment that this was not done and that the original category architects can't now recognise or admit this fact.
I agree however that the names are malformed, but this is a minor problem, all you have to do is state the class name then the number so that Category:British Rail Class 334002 becomes Category:British Rail Class 334, 334002 this would be an easy task that would put the structure inline with those used for Diesel Locomotives etc Oxyman (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Just get rid. Searching for a specific unit amongst the pictures if/when one becomes notable will be just that bit more difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pencfen (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC) (UTC)
Why should everything in the UK trains categories be "just that bit more difficult", surely we should have a decent, logical and functional category structure like they do elsewhere in commons? Oxyman (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, the point of having a category for the class by operator is that the alternative is a flat category of "Trains of (Operator)", which would quickly become unmanageable. The point of the livery is that it's a major part of an operator's identity. The point of line is that if you want photos of a particular railway line, you likely want photos of trains on that line. I grant you the names of lines can be annoying, but I'm working on an index for that.
If your thought is that all those categories should be replaced by categories for individual units, then frankly you're out of your mind. The chances of someone caring if their photo of a train is of 158881 or 158882 is miniscule, and pretty much relies on having a major crash, because barring incidents such as that no individual unit is ever going to be noteworthy (as in I want this particular unit, not that one) in of itself. Much more likely they will care if it's a photo of it being operated by British Rail or by South West Trains; or whether it's in a BR livery or a First livery. Maybe this does mean we, for a time, get "redundant" categories due to lack of different operators or liveries, but it is at best only temporary. Franchises change, even a single train operator occasionally comes up with a new livery (witness the Lycamobile 378s), and it fits into an overall structure that ensures consistency.
Now, I will grant you, the category system leaves a lot to be desired, and a system of tagging and filtering would be a lot better; but we don't have that, we have categories. If and when the software is modified we can modify our categorisation system, until then we need to work with what we have.
Regarding your comment about diesel locomotives, the only ones I am aware of which have their individual categories are ones in preservation, and those are by definition the few survivors of a now-redundant class. While I'm not a fan of those having their own categories, I can understand it, as the average heritage unit probably gets an order of magnitude more attention than it ever did as a mainline loco, and thus there are enough photos to make it worthwhile from the standpoint of reducing the number of files in "diesel locomotives of the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway".
-mattbuck (Talk) 00:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Nothing you have said explains or excuses in any way, the mess that is the UK trains category structure. "Trains of (Operator)" apparently "quickly become unmanageable." so you increased and compounded the problem by spreading it over every class! "The point of the livery is that it's a major part of an operator's identity." That much is true However it not a major part of a classes identity, so there was never any need to spread this over all the classes. Also there have been 'discussions' about what is and is not a livery. When you can't even get a consensus on that it shows that a category system has failed. Not that in many cases you can even tell what livery a train is in and a fair bit of guesswork is often used. "The point of line is that if you want photos of a particular railway line, you likely want photos of trains on that line." Many lines are short and don't need to be split by class others are so lang that you may wish for a more local system.
"If your thought is that all those categories should be replaced by categories for individual units, then frankly you're out of your mind." This comment goes to prove my above point that the existing scheme "is the product of a few people who have not listened to any other users opinions and have railroaded (Forgive that pun) their particular scheme through to the detriment of all other users who wish to use the UK trains categories" and if they happen not to agree with you they are somehow out of there mind! I'm afraid not. Arguments about whether something is "noteworthy" have absolutely no place on Commons, that nonsense if for Wikipedia and demonstrates my point that the existing category structure was "designed by someone more at home at Wikipedia". The sheer, basic and apparent fact is that at Commons arranging by numbers is found more useful for aircraft, ships, buses and non UK trains, it is inherently logical, unlike the UK train categories.
There is nothing wrong with the Category system at commons if it is used logically and correctly, there really is no need for "a system of tagging and filtering" which would probably just get even more complex. All that is needed is to use what we have logically and consistently with how this project is used on a global scale. Nothing you can say changes the total failure of the current system. Where categories by number have been used it is always simpler and easier to use then the current UK trains only categories.
While I would not object to you replacing the existing mess with logical categories by unit, I am not actually asking you to delete the existing Categories, all I'm asking is that where logical, by number categories have been created, is that they are allowed to remain as they are useful Oxyman (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Picture by Josve05a[edit]

Not used. I'll use Category:Photographs taken by Josve05a‎ instead. Josve05a (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted: INeverCry 18:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Liliana Barba[edit]

this category is empty, it has no files about the person, it will be deleted!!! Duque Santiago (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted: INeverCry 18:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Louis Jones[edit]

empty category that will be deleted!!! Duque Santiago (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted: INeverCry 18:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Journalists from France[edit]

What's the difference between this category and Category:French journalists ? Sammyday (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Files from Category:French journalists moved here. Ankry (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:French journalists[edit]

What's the difference between this category and Category:Journalists from France ? Sammyday (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No difference — Mouh2jijel [Talk] 07:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Category:French journalists contains less pictures than Category:Journalists from France. Maybe we could transfer all of the pictures from "French journalists" to "Journalists from France".--Sammyday (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Merged with Category:Journalists from France. Ankry (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Hermann Philippsberg, Rauchwarenhändler[edit]

I'd suggest Category:Hermann Philippsberg as a category name. Leyo 01:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Support, there's no reason to add a disambiguation in the first place, and even if there were, this one is unsuitable: it's German instead of English and fur trader would be preferable to Rauchwarenhändler. --rimshottalk 08:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, and if there should be a disambiguation, English fur trader or fur wholesale dealer is also good (by the way, they call themselves Rauchwarenhändler). The uploader --Kürschner (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I honestly believed Rauchwarenhändler meant en:tobacconist. This doesn't change the points about the language and the lack of a need for disambiguation, however. --rimshottalk 19:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Hermann Philippsberg, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 20:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Archaeological site of Aitna[edit]

Empty category, unclear if needed; error on page. Leyo 12:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Deleted as empty. From w:Aetna_(city)#Location, no one currently knows where the city was located, and therefore it is impossible at the moment to populate this category. No prejudice against recreating this category if the actual, or even a possible, site is found, and we have the files to populate this cat.--KTo288 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10[edit]

Someone applied a speedy deletion tag to this category, saying only "Also known as Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ20 for Eruope. This is not a speedy deletion criteria. If the two model number actually do describe identical cameras this does not explain why the DMC-TZ20 should have pride of place. Why shouldn't Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ20 redirect to Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10? Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh yeah, someone, possibly the same contributor, recently emptied the existing category. Geo Swan (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ10 and TZ20 are not identical cameras. TZ20 and ZS10 are because latter is an American version of TZ20. Allo002 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2014
  • If, for the sake of argument, two models are identical this is not only not grounds for speedy deletion, I suggest it is not grounds for regular deletion either. If, for the sake of argument, the two models are identical one name should be a redirect to the other.
You haven't explained why Category:Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ20 should have pride of place.
I repeat the request I placed on User talk:Allo002. Could you pleas comply with Commons:Renaming a category? If you had done so, and the decision had been made that Category:Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ20 should have pride of place, a robot would have taken care of moving the images into the new category.
As I wrote on your talk page, deletion of existing categories is disruptive and causes chaos. Geo Swan (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I changed TZ10 to ZS10 above.

Author requested deletion of unused and empty category. No restrictions placed on recreation. -FASTILY 04:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Aife Scott concert at Festival Interceltique Lorient 2014[edit]

error when uploading the files, should be deleted XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted, empty, author request. --rimshottalk 19:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Destroyed bridges[edit]

This nomination also includes Category:Demolished bridges; if it's possible to nominate multiple categories at once (without manual editing), I'm unaware of it. The nomination is based on Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Demolished buildings. The distinction between the two categories isn't at all helpful to many reusers; if you're looking for a no-longer-there bridge, you probably don't care why it's no longer there. Morever, it's confusing to us uploaders, because sometimes you don't know why a bridge is no longer standing; the subject of Category:KY49 Rolling Fork River Bridge clearly isn't standing (Kentucky Route 49 spans the Rolling Fork River on an ugly concrete bridge, with no truss bridges visible at the location), but I have no clue why it's gone. Why should I need to know why it's gone in order to categorise it properly? I'm going to request a merger of demolished into destroyed, but based on the CFD for the demolished buildings, I'll not object if people want to convert the demolished bridges into something parallel to Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Springs in Kentucky[edit]

Given the existence of Category:Springs of Kentucky, there's really no point in having this category. We could get rid of the other one instead, but the parent is Springs of the United States and most other state-level categories are "of", e.g. Category:Springs of Texas. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Senators of the United States[edit]

This category's name is far broader than its contents. The name embraces federal senators and state senators, but the contents demonstrate that it's meant to include just federal senators. For these senators, we have an established name, United States Senator, and en:Senator of the United States doesn't even exist. The category originally had this name, Category:United States Senators, but for some reason it became a {{category redirect}} several years ago. Both this parent category and its state-level subcategories ought to be moved to "United States Senators". Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Human Rights in Tibet[edit]

Should be renamed/merged to Category:Human rights in Tibet, per the standard of the other categories in Category:Human rights by country GRuban (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

ACK. [w.] 21:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Military insignia of France[edit]

(tout est en français, je ne suis pas assez bon en anglais pour rédiger quelque chose de correct).
Suite à la suppression de fichiers de Oursmili, à une discussion sur fr:Wikipédia:Legifer/août 2014#Insignes militaires français, et à une réponse du ministère de la défense, il y a quelques précisions concernant le droit de Commons à conserver certaines images d'insignes.

La réponse du ministère


En réponse à la question, voici des éléments de réponse ci-dessous par la DICOD ; antenne chargée de la communication des armées.

L’insigne est considérée comme une œuvre de l’esprit, c'est-à-dire constitutive d’une création originale prenant corps dans une forme. Elle présente les deux caractéristiques d’être un travail artistique transcrit dans une forme et de présenter une originalité réelle. A ce titre, elle entre dans le champ de protection offerte par la législation relative au droit d’auteur et bénéficie des dispositions de l’article L.111-1 du Code de la propriété intellectuelle (CPI) qui dispose que « L’auteur d’une œuvre de l’esprit jouit sur cette œuvre, du seul fait de sa création, d’un droit de propriété incorporelle exclusif et opposable à tous ». Il est également possible que l’insigne du régiment ait fait l’objet d’un dépôt auprès de l’INPI au titre des dessins, modèles ou marques, ce qui renforcerait la protection de l’insigne. En conséquence, le ministère de la Défense (et plus spécifiquement le régiment, dépositaire de l’insigne), en tant qu’il bénéficie du droit d’auteur sur cet insigne, dispose d’un droit de représentation et de reproduction de l’œuvre qui oblige les éventuels utilisateurs tiers à demander et obtenir l’autorisation pour reproduire ces insignes, sous peine de s’exposer à des poursuites civiles ou pénales. En effet en l’absence d’autorisation de la part du régiment, l’utilisation de l’insigne par un tiers quelque soit le type de support est considéré comme une utilisation frauduleuse. Il y aura donc contrefaçon, le tiers risque donc 3 ans d’emprisonnement et 300 000 euros d’amende d’après l’article L.335-2 du CPI.

Nous restons à votre disposition si besoin.


CENTRE DE PRESSE Département Médias Délégation à l'information et à la communication de la Défense

DICoD Ecole militaire 1, Place Joffre 75007 Paris

Conclusion possible

Aucun fichier d'une unité existante ne peut être conservé sans l'accord expresse du ministère ou de ladite unité. Pour les unités dissoutes depuis moins de 70 ans, les images d'insignes restent soumises au droit d'auteur. Pour les régiments dissous depuis plus de 70 ans, les images ne sont plus soumises au droit d'auteur.

Autre possibilité

Transférer certains des insignes sur fr, en vertu de fr:Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur (il faudrait que la communauté :fr valide la chose auparavant).-- Sammyday (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Georgian Revival architecture in the United States[edit]

According to en:Colonial Revival architecture, this is just a different name for Colonial Revival. The parent ought to be merged into CAT:CR Architecture in the USA, and the same for the subcats, e.g. Category:Georgian Revival architecture in Illinois ought to be merged into Category:Colonial Revival architecture in Illinois. Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a reliable source. why mess with an entire tree of categories, in order to sustain americanisms? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? On the name, this is purely a US subcategory, and we have US names for US subcategories, e.g. the US subcategory for Category:Petrol stations by country is Category:Gas stations in the United States, not "Petrol stations in the United States", just like how the UK subcategory for Category:Theaters is Category:Theatres in the United Kingdom, not "Theaters in the United Kingdom". And what's the difference between CR and GR in a US context? Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:People of Shanghai Dongya FC[edit]

Incorrectly titled; should be Category:Players of Shanghai Dongya FC. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Alpnach Küchen[edit]

Wodurch Notwendigkeit / Relevanz? (Vglöschkandidaten/4._August_2014#Alpnach_K.C3.BCchen_AG_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29 undöschkandidaten/21._August_2014#Alpnach_Norm-Schrankelemente_AG_.28SLA.29 und Martin Sg. (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Reformers wall[edit]

Then English WP page is w:Reformation Wall. We should rename the category to match. Otherwise it should be Reformer's Wall. Jfhutson (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Former churches in the United States by religion[edit]

The name and the contents of the category are at variance. The name suggests that we're dividing former churches by the faith once preached therein: former churches that were once Presbyterian, former churches that were once Baptist, etc. However, the contents are different: they depict churches that were formerly Presbyterian, churches that were formerly Baptist, etc., regardless of whether the buildings are still churches or not. We really ought to change the name; something like "Churches in the United States by former religion" would be much better. Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe my first statement isn't too understandable, so let me give you an example, File:Holy Spirit Fellowship, former First RPC.jpg. This building was originally Presbyterian, the Catholics bought it some decades later, and they've since sold it to the Pentecostals. It fits well into two subcategories, Category:Former Roman Catholic churches in Pennsylvania and Category:Former Presbyterian churches in the United States, since it used to be a Catholic church and it used to be a Presbyterian church, but "Former churches in the USA by religion" wouldn't seem to apply to it because it's still a church. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Shani Evenstein at Wikimania 2014[edit]

Subject contacted me and asked for its removal Thelmadatter (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:The Hunger Games premiere in Los Angeles[edit]

empty category Dinosaur918 (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Where did all the files go? I think I made this category; it had a substantial number of files in it. There was this premiere in Los Angeles and then Category:The Hunger Games premiere in Sydney (which is still populated). The Google cache shows this category empty by the time it was last cached, 2014-07-10. --Closeapple (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • They are probably removed from Commons. Maybe you can take a look at the discussion pages for more information? Dinosaur918 (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Plants in Japan[edit]

shouldn't this be a category redirect to "flora of japan", instead of its subcategory? Vera (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Basketball block[edit]

This category is an identical description to Category:Blocked shot (basketball). It should be titled the latter, to avoid confusion with a blocking foul. Hoops gza (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, Hoops gza. I'd say you can just go ahead and merge Category:Basketball block into Category:Blocked shot (basketball) with {{Category redirect}}. Thanks for taking the initiative on this! Michael Barera (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Michelle von Bärlin in Thailand[edit]

Its nice of these people to share their personal holiday-memories with us, but all pictures in this gallery are way out of scope, since I can see no realistic educational use for them. Weissbier (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. None of the images will be missed as there are numerous others showing the main subjects of these images but then without the holiday makers themselves on them. - Takeaway (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If the pictures are being kept, the user category needs being renamed to e.g. Category:Photographs by User:Michelle von Bärlin/Thailand or alike. --Leyo 21:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hartmann Linge in Thailand[edit]

Personal holiday-memories. See Commons:Project_scope#Examples. Weissbier (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Epileptic boy[edit]

Emptied and blanked a few days ago, but existing for three years - so usually rather a category redirect instead of a deletion. On the other hand, the category name is less than good and I´m not even sure if the target of the redirect is right. So I lay this before the court of additional opinions :-) Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pulpit covers[edit]

Should be merged with the existing Category:Abat voix. However the spelling should be changed into Abat-voix as in (en:Abat-voix) . Jwh (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Manuel Pereira Álvarez[edit]

Empty category. No apparent notabilty of the person. Rudolph Buch (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:RED VELVET K-POP[edit]

Empty, files have been deleted due to missing permissions (see User talk:Jananast1994). Category can be re-created when properly licensed files are available. Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Orion (ship)[edit]

This category contains no media. Dozens of ships have been called "Orion". This category serves no clear purpose. Motacilla (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Category:University hospitals[edit]

Merge to Category:Teaching hospitals as University hospitals are not a separate topic. In English WP, they were merged following the discussion en:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_27#Category:University_hospitals. Apart from Commons, only Korea now has a two-level category structure, and that only has a small number of members. - Fayenatic london (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Border signs[edit]

I think there should be some coordination or clarification between some of the categories listed below. They overlap, or have images which would be better placed in other categories. --Evrik (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ecology by country[edit]

This category and its subcats are not about ecology. They relate to environment, conservation, and natural history. The contents should be merged to the appropriate categories and the series deleted (unless there are any that are actually relating to ecology but a quick check did not show up any). Alan Liefting (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:LGBT pride by country[edit]

We should standardize these subcategories to "Gay Pride" or "LGBT Pride". I'd vote for LGBT as it's more inclusive, but on the other hand the Wikipedia article is w:Gay Pride. Brainy J (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Illustrations by work[edit]

Dupe to Category:Graphics by book. Should be merged, I don't know in which direction. Danny lost (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hyper-Real HDR[edit]

Category name seems not to be a widely-used term, nospecific criteria for categorization, cat contains only one picture Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Lady Feodora Gleichen[edit]

Looks like a duplicate category of category:Feodora Gleichen. Looks like a merge required to one or other of the categories. Keith D (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I am not shure, which is the better name. Kersti (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pashupatinath temple[edit]

Is there any real difference between Category:Pashupatinath and Category:Pashupatinath temple? Isn't Pashupatinath a temple complex? Put another way: what images will be in a category that aern't relevant to the other also? Stegop (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I think more thought should be put into what goes in which specific categories. My view is that the categories should be cleaner and more specific as to content so the viewer has some guidance, such as putting the temple's ghats into a subcategory. I don't think large, indiscriminate categories are helpful. Is the proposal to put all these into one category? i.e. merge Category:Pashupatinath and its subcategories (Category:Cremations in Pashupatinath, Category:Sadhus in Pashupatinath,etc.) with Category:Pashupatinath temple? Or visa versa? Or some third category? Parabolooidal (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

So the wiser to do is transform Category:Pashupatinath and Category:Pashupatinath temple in a disambiguation, not keeping 2 o 3 categories with images from the same things. --Stegop (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think a disambiguation is the way to go, personally. My way would be to clean the categories so that what is in each one really belongs. It's informative to see the way other countries handle categorization. India has many small and specific categories e.g. for topics like temples, so that everything in a category belongs there. And there are many cross-categories. Look at Category:Cave temples in India for example. Or Category:Temples in India. Or Category:Temple tanks in Karnataka, etc. There aren't huge vague categories with hundreds of questionable images. It's all very carefully categorized and many ways to access a particular interest, like "temple tanks" in wherever. Or look at Category:Badami Cave Temples. See how finely categorized everything is? Or another cross-category like Category:Temple tanks in India. There, the viewer can see that there is an attempt to correctly categorize the images to overcome having huge, vague categories. Or another huge example Category:Death Valley National Park. There the viewer can be sure that the categories that exist are accurate. Parabolooidal (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what you suggest to do. The fact is that now we have photos in Category:Pashupatinath that could well be in Category:Pashupatinath temple and the former is categorized as a place in Kathmandu, so it doesn't make sense having them separated, at least with those ambiguous names. --Stegop (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Isaac Arnault[edit]

This person is unknown in France. He tried to insert an article about a supposed society on french wikipedia project : . It's the reason why I discover he use wikimedia commons as a hosting place for his holidays photos. WP:NOTHOSTING gpesenti (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
French article MVNDVS was deleted after discussion :
Isaac Arnault alias user IxAdvisoryTalents was the author of this page. --gpesenti (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC) This Isaac Arnault, which is contemporary, must not be confused with Isaac Arnault, seigneur de Corbeville (1566-1617). This person has no elective functions, no politic funcitons, no diplomatic functions and is really unknown in France. I think his contributions are to be interpreted as personnal branding.--gpesenti (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Historical information signs[edit]

What's the difference between this category and Category:Historical markers? Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Historical information signs" is for information boards only (no plaques, no stone signs, no pointers). --Kaganer (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I kind of suspected that historical markers were largely intended to cover plaques on pedestals, etc., while historical information signs was intended to cover information boards, etc. The problem is twofold:

1. First, the description at the top of Category:Historical markers is so broad that it encompasses all historical signage (including information boards). This presumably could be remedied (subject to comments below). The term "historical marker", however, is itself arguably broad.
2.The name of Category:Historical information signs, in plain language, encompasses all types of historical signs that convey information, including plaques, historical markers, etc. There is nothing in the title which suggests that it is limited to information boards. Confusingly, it is a subcat of Category:Historical markers, suggesting it is a type of historical marker. Arguably it should be the parent category.

I am concerned that the terms "historical information signs" and "historical markers" are a bit imprecise (especially the former) and the current organization is muddled. To add to the confusion, we also have Category:Plaques, the contents of which are described as "A [sic] commemorative plaques, or simply plaques, are plates of metal, ceramic, stone, wood, or other material, typically attached to a wall, stone, or other vertical surface, and bearing text in memory of an important figure or event." Not sure what the difference is between a plaque and a historical marker. A historical marker would seem to be a type of plaque, but what other types of plaque exist that wouldn't also be historical markers? The description at Category:Plaques makes clear that it is not intended to cover machine signs (whatever that is), information tablets (the parent cat for Category:Historical information signs) and plaques in biology (good to know). Even though the contents of Category:Plaques are described as commemorative in nature, we also have Category:Commemorative plaques just to add to the fun. Unclear what makes Category:Commemorative plaques different from Category:Plaques.

I'm not saying we should merge all these categories or anything. Just that there is a lot of overlap, and the distinctions between them are less than crystal clear. It would be great to figure out a rationale schema that covers these categories so that someone with a photo of a historical sign has a better idea where it goes. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have left notes referring to this discussion on the talk pages of all the categories mentioned above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
We also seem to have a category entitled Category:Historic plaques, the name of which suggests that it should contain files of plaques that themselves have historic value (i.e. really old plaques), but unfortunately the category just duplicates the other categories mentioned above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Russian alphabet[edit]

The subcategories under each letter are named in Russian instead of English (e.g., Category:И буква‎, Category:И звук and Category:И слова‎ under Category:И). This would appear to run counter to our category-naming policy, and makes the category difficult to use for anyone who does not already read Russian. Accordingly, I suggest that all of these subcategories be renamed.

Note that: ("X" here is a placeholder for each Russian letter)

  • "X буква‎" = "X letter", so rename to "Russian letter X" or "X (Russian letter)" or…?
  • "X звук" = "X sound", so rename to somehow use the English word "sound" or "pronunciation"
  • "X слова‎" = "X words", so rename to somehow use the English word "words"

I'm not sure what conventions we should use here, since there seems to be no agreement in such matters across different alphabets — based on a quick spot-check, anyway. Opinions? Can someone point to relevant guidelines, discussions, or an example of a similar category "done right"? - dcljr (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, use the names from Unicode or from the Wikipedia articles about the letters. As for the sounds, there is a tradition among Russists to transcribe them with a Latin-based Czech-like alphabet, if you need some transcriptions for the sounds. Perhaps, you can see such transcriptions in linguistic academic articles on Russian, for example, the ones from the FASL conferences (Formal approaches to Slavic languages).--Imz (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Alexa Szlávics[edit]

Only containing an out-of-scope file. Empty soon. BrightRaven (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Caprona ransonnetti[edit]

The correct spelling seems "Caprona ransonnettii". See en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lepidoptera#Caprona_ransonnetti. Jee 15:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It is Caprona ransonnetii after Baron v. Ransonnet. - Brya (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Brya: So we need to change to Caprona ransonnetii? Jee 07:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. - Brya (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Animals in zoos by zoo name[edit]

I'm afraid I don't get the point of this entire category structure. When there's a category "(species name) in zoos", then what kinds of subcategories would you be expecting except, well, various zoo names? I propose simplifying all "(X)" → "(X) in zoos" → "(X) in zoos by zoo name" → "(X) in zoo (Y)" category structures to "(X)" → "(X) in zoos" → "(X) in zoo (Y)". This makes both categorization and navigation easier. darkweasel94 19:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. In which supercategory do you plan to put the categories of the "(X) in zoo (Y)" type ? Teofilo (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
For example, I think Category:Ailuropoda melanoleuca in Schönbrunn zoo should be in Category:Ailuropoda melanoleuca in zoos directly. There's now one extra step in the category structure there that I don't think serves any useful purpose, in most cases at least. darkweasel94 09:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I think category:Ursidae in Taipei zoo‎ should not be in Category:Ursidae in zoos directly, and that Category:Ursidae in zoos by zoo name is useful and needed. Teofilo (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see that yes, in these family categories it can be useful to separate "by species" from "by zoo". But I don't think it's useful in species categories, there it only leads to more complexity with no navigational benefit. I'm not sure how to get the best of both worlds here without breaking the logical structure, though. darkweasel94 20:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes I think the double classification is useful for the higher taxons (mammals, etc...). For the lowest taxon (usually species) there should be only a single classification. I think the "by zoo" thing should be deleted on those lower levels as you are saying. So you have my approval if you need it in case you want to delete or rename categories along that line. Teofilo (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Having worked a lot with the zoo categories, I agree with the idea that "by zoo name" cats be reserved for families and taxonomic levels above only, and discontinued for levels below families. --Pitke (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Photos by Adam Jones[edit]

Redundant to Category:Photographs by Adam Jones Brainy J (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:YYYY events in Finland by city[edit]

I request all "YYYY events in Finland by city" categories to be deleted. At the moment, Helsinki is the only city having year-event categories, so "YYYY events in Finland by city" categories are unnecessary and harmful because they just add one more layer of categorization. "YYYY events in Helsinki" categories can be categorized directly under "YYYY events in Finland" instead. Moreover, I don't see year-event categories useful for any other Finnish city since the low number of event categories or images. (Again, having categories with only one or two sub-categories or images in them just makes finding the images harder.)

At the moment such categories are:

––Apalsola tc 16:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This discussion relates to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/07/Category:1950 events in Helsinki. ––Apalsola tc 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:YYYY events in Helsinki[edit]

I request all pre-2000 "YYYY events in Helsinki" categories to be deleted. At the moment, the number of pictures (or categories) of events in Helsinki – and actually the number of any pictures of Finland – from that time is so low in Commons, that having this kind of categories is harmful because they just make finding images harder.

At the moment such categories are:

This discussion relates to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/07/Category:1950 events in Finland by city. ––Apalsola tc 16:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport by year[edit]

  1. Official name is Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen GmbH (Hannover Airport). see
  2. The slash in Category:Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport by year“ don´t looks good.
  3. I think "International" in the category name is unnecessary.
  4. And the category name of the city was renamed by a category discussion.
  5. With Hyphen? (Hannover-Langenhagen). See Category:Berlin Schönefeld Airport by year, Category:Berlin Tegel Airport by year or Category:Berlin Tempelhof Airport by year

--Jean11 (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


  • Category:Hannover-Langenhagen Airport by year
  • Category:Hannover Langenhagen Airport by year
  • Category:Hannover Airport by year
    • Support the third proposal listed above. The cat should reflect the official name and the name in Wikipedia ie Hannover Airport. However, it is pointless changing the by year cat alone and all other relevant cats should also be changed to using Hannover Airport, ie cat:Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport, cat:Aircraft at Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport and all other sub-cats. Ardfern (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I had should better start the discussion at the mother cat Category:Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport, should I start again? --Jean11 (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you could just add {{Move}} template to Category:Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport. The discussion could take place on Category talk:Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport. If no one objects in two weeks, then a category rename request can be added to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. {{Cfd}} really is not necessary for pure category renames – I think it suits better for discussion changes in category structure on removals. ––Apalsola tc 21:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Vienna U-Bahn types[edit]

This should be renamed to "Vienna U-Bahn rolling stock", per other examples in Category:Metro rolling stock and because the current title doesn't allow for future categories like "interiors of Vienna U-Bahn rolling stock", as that isn't really a "type". darkweasel94 08:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to get rid of the "U-Bahn" and instead use Metro rolling stock of Vienna.    FDMS  4    21:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
You do realize that the page title on enwiki is en:Vienna U-Bahn? darkweasel94 05:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
There is also Trams in Vienna, Western Railway, … I didn't know you cared so much about en.WP, I personally wouldn't in this case …    FDMS  4    08:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
As our category names are supposed to be in English, I think enwiki provides good guidance as to what is the English-language name of something. But I don't really care strongly, the important thing is the "rolling stock" instead of "types" part. darkweasel94 09:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
U-Bahn is as German as Straßenbahn or Bahnhof are …    FDMS  4    09:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
… and "Vienna metro" has almost 4 times as many English search results as "Vienna U-Bahn".    FDMS  4    15:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't feel that {{#expr:27500/22300}} = 1.23 is almost 4. But it generally is not a good idea to argue with number of Bing matches (as they are personalized). And at least you should filter away the Vienna metro station in Washington DC and the combination of Vienna U-Bahn and French Vienne Metro. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Just … curiousity: How can the amount of search results be personalised? I still get 60,8 k (which is a slight increase compared to Thursday) vs. 14,2 k in "private browsing" …    FDMS  4    19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) There is also another reason to have "U-Bahn", which is that "metro" can just as well refer to the old Wiener Stadtbahn system (indeed, "Stadtbahn" was originally a translation of the French "métropolitain", while "U-Bahn" clearly didn't come from there). The 1986/1987 Freytag & Berndt map of Vienna translates things like this in the legend of its rapid transit map:
  • U-Bahn, Underground, Métro, Metropolitana
  • Schnellbahn, Rapid Transit, Train de banlieue rapide, Tren rápido
  • Regionalbahn, Commuter trains, Train de banlieue, Ferrovia regionale
  • Badner Bahn, Local train to Baden, Train local de Baden, Treno locale per Baden
  • Stadtbahn, Metropolitan, Métro (vieux), Metropolitana (vecchia)
The 2014 edition of the same map no longer has French or Italian translations:
  • U-Bahn, Underground
  • S-Bahn, Rapid train railway
  • Regionalbahn, Commuter trains
  • Wiener Lokalbahn (Badner Bahn), Suburban railway Vienna-Baden
  • City Airport Train (CAT)
Here we see that "metropolitan" (i.e., metro) was used to refer to the old Stadtbahn system, and "underground" to the U-Bahn system (the French and Italian translations are even more interesting). I'd say "U-Bahn" is a far less ambiguous term; if this becomes "metro rolling stock", then I'm going to categorize Category:Vienna Stadtbahn type N and Category:Vienna Stadtbahn type N1 here, and it can't stay a subcategory of Category:Vienna U-Bahn anymore because "metro rolling stock" clearly must include all Stadtbahn rolling stock. darkweasel94 16:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't disagree with (in fact even endorse) categorising the Wiener Stadtbahn (en.WP uses this term for whatever reason) / Vienna Stadtbahn (we sometimes use this term) or rather subcategories of it under Metro Vienna (my preferred name would be Metro of Vienna); currenlty we are including media files from (up to) 2008 in a completely seperate category thread for the means of transport which ceased to exist in Vienna in 1989. However, although I wasn't alive back then, I think that while the Stadtbahn ceased to exist, the metro didn't, and much of what would later be called "U-Bahn" by locals was in fact not at all different from the Stadtbahn.
According to w:Passenger rail terminology#Untergrond and Tube [the] usage of underground is very similar to that of subway, describing an underground train system […], and as there is no underground train system in Vienna Freytag & Berndt is maybe wrong calling the metro/U-Bahn an undergound.    FDMS  4    19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for the original request. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The additional request by FDMS4 should be discussed together for Nuremburg, Vienna (already ongoing), but also Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich and Hamburg. Maybe the Portal:Bahn can help to provide guidelines. And it is not only the U-Bahn, it is also the S-Bahn and the Stadtbahn that might be subject to greedy Englishifying. IMO all three are proper names derived from standard German expressions. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I'm paranoid if I believe that amongst contributors to the German Wikipedia there is an above-average number of people who would like to see every category related to DACHLI in German …    FDMS  4    19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Mahadev Temple[edit]

The photos show the same temple of Category:Shiva Mandir, Bhaktapur Stegop (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The monuments have different IDs, which should mean that there are two distinct monuments. Is it possible that some of the files are named / categorized incorrectly? --rimshottalk 09:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Mountain of Langtang, Rasuwa[edit]

Meaningless name. If the mountain is not identified, then the photos should go to the generic category Category:Langtang Stegop (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


Images in this category have an ID placed on them:

English: Mountain of Langtang, Rasuwa
Flag of Nepal.svg

This is a photo of a natural site in Nepal identified by the ID NP-RAS-04

They are in Category:Natural heritage sites in Nepal with known IDs.

Before I categorized this natural site in Nepal identified by a specific ID, these 34 images were in with many other images in a very large general category, most images with no ID. The ID

Flag of Nepal.svg

This is a photo of a natural site in Nepal identified by the ID NP-RAS-04

now is placed in Category:Langtang in a way that includes categories and images that have no IDs. What is the point of the use of the ID's if they are used in a way that helps identify them and the images mixed in with other images and categories with no IDs? The category Category:Langtang is massive with images mostly lacking the known IDs. Parabolooidal (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • ID NP-RAS-04 stands for what? Is it not the Langtang Range? Or probably the Langtang National Park, which is perhaps another redundant category. Anyway, if the ID doesn't apply to all the range, how can we trust that an unidentified mountain belongs to the classified site? --Stegop (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Photographs of road signs[edit]

Misuse of a Photographs category. Contents should be merged into Category:Road signs. --ghouston (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Another creation of Jermboy27. INeverCry 07:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport[edit]

  1. Official name is Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen (english: Hannover Airport). see, see also in the english Wikipedia en:Hannover Airport
  2. The slash in Category:Hanover/Langenhagen International Airport“ don´t looks good.
  3. I think "International" in the category name is unnecessary.
  4. And the category name of the city was renamed by a category discussion.
  5. With Hyphen? (Hannover-Langenhagen). See Category:Berlin Schönefeld Airport by year, Category:Berlin Tegel Airport by year or Category:Berlin Tempelhof Airport by year --Jean11 (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


  • Category:Hannover-Langenhagen Airport
  • Category:Hannover Langenhagen Airport
  • Category:Hannover Airport
Keep it simple. Category:Hannover Airport --MB-one (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Views from outside of trains[edit]

Shouldn't this category include all photos which are currently outside of Category:Views from trains? No, that wouldn't be very useful, therefore redirect to Category:Views from trains.    FDMS  4    20:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:U-Bahn train (Nürnberg)[edit]

This category is singular instead of plural and German instead of English. I hereby suggest moving it to Metro rolling stock of Nuremberg.    FDMS  4    08:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, "U-Bahn" is a proper name widely used in English for systems with that name. There is no problem at all in having that word in category names. darkweasel94 10:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, we try to harmonize category names locally (on Commons), and its parent category is called Metro rolling stock, not U-Bahn rolling stock. While I doubt "U-Bahn" is a proper English word "tramway" definitely is, and we do not encourage using it in category names on Commons either.    FDMS  4    15:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
It isn't even really possible to harmonize that, given how many names are in use even in English-speaking countries: metro, subway, underground, and our root category is actually called rapid transit. darkweasel94 15:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I guess "metro" is the preferred one (on Commons, not on en.WP as far as I know) as it's a redirect and explicitely mentioned on Category:Rapid transit.    FDMS  4    13:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


Unspecific category, should rather be a disambiguation page, but even that seems doubtful Rudolph Buch (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Category:Volvo 7000A (Poland)[edit]

There were several open category for discussion threads from 2010. I closed all but one of them today, and the remaining one needs further attention. I have copied it below:

The category name is misleading: Volvo 7000A (Poland) is a quite bad name for a category that contains buses that were manufuctured in Poland 19:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Volvo 7000A was built in Finland and Poland (Wrocław). Exist many categories like this:
Better category? "Volvo 7000A built in Poland"? (in discussion) "Volvo 7000A manufactured in Poland"? Marek Banach (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally feel that the "Category:[Bus model] built in [Country]" formula works best, and seems to reflect the existing category structure. I would advocate doing all of these that way. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support "Category:[Bus model] built in [Country]", as it makes the purpose of the categories clear while still staying concise. --rimshottalk 06:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Churches of the Annunciation In Hungary[edit]

Capitalisation error: should be Category:Churches of the Annunciation in Hungary, with "in" rather than "In". This is a simple move, and I'd have CommonsDelinker do it if they weren't so severely backlogged. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Geschützter Landschaftsteil in Austria[edit]

The category has a German name, and the content is identical to the parent cat Category:Protected landscape areas in Austria. Teil and Gebiet (in German) do not make a semantic difference, and it is complicated for the one not involved in the Austrian WLE project, to get the difference. I will inform the suitable portal on de:WP. Categorization is the right level of abstraction. Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Landschaftsschutzgebiet is not the same as Geschützter Landschaftsteil, there are two different definitions by law. If you can provide good english translations I'd be happy if you'd do so, I couldn't find some. And I don't think it is a good idea to invent a name for an object that doesn't exist outside Austria... Best --AleXXw 18:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Protected landscape part? --Reinhard Müller (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:San José State University[edit]

The category should be moved to category:San Jose State University, and other related categories should have the accented E converted to a regular E as well. This is for consistency, as well as all SJSU/San Jose, CA related Wikipedia articles without the accented E in titles. --Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like Category:San José State University athletics to be moved to category:San Jose State Spartans. Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


In English oldtimers is not a term that is used for vintage vehicles. That term for vintage vehicles is only used in Dutch and German. Alan Liefting (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge to Category:Historical vehicles and appropriate subcategories. Some subcategories will have to be created, in particular the by-country categories. This looks like a fair bit of work with some judgement calls having to be made. --rimshottalk 06:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Merge, per Rimshot. Dentalplanlisa (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Old signs[edit]

subjective inclusion criteria: what is old? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? of no use to project Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think, 70 is a good age. Useful for people who look for images of old signs (?!) --Mattes (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
that may be hard to determine, and may also be an arbitrary cut off point. I would alternately suggest 21st century signs, 2oth century signs, and 19th century signs. I do see the value of a category for old signage, just not sure how thats implemented best.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Elephants of Zambia[edit]

Elephants can be several species. Do you know about the Asian elephants in the zoos of Zambia?  Biopics 09:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

More than 99% of Elephant photos from South Afrika, Zambia etc are Loxodonta africana, as they are the only species living wild there and in most cases Tourists are the ones who make the photos. I would prefer to rename all categories of the type "Elephants of ..." in countries where one of these species lives in the wild to "Loxodonta africana of ..." or "Elephas maximus of ..." as it is nessesary to diffuse both species categories as much as possible. (Up to now I didn't find a single example of the other species! I guess it is possible, but that is the reason to use the exact species name!) Kersti (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Elephants by location[edit]

Please use the species name. This creates cross-generic confusion.  Biopics 09:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree if you mean category move to Category:Elephantidae by location or some specific name.--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep the subcategories include elephants by locations such as australia, which may have both major species. the categories for places like kenya are not under the species name. I think the generic term is fine for this container category. i would encourage the creation of species specific categories for those places which have only 1 species.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Mercurywoodrose: the categories for places like kenya are not under the species name.

This should be changed as they include only one species and Elephas maximus and Loxodonta africana need diffusion.

I would prefer a category tree like this, in which all Category:XXX by country categories use the scientific name Elephas maximus, Loxodonta cyclotis, or Loxodonta africana, with exeption of categories where none of these species is native.

--Kersti (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Forth Bridge construction[edit]

Confusion with other "Construction of..." categories in Category:Bridge construction in the United Kingdom; also content does not reflect construction of the bridge but maintenance. Recommend moving contents into Category:Forth Bridge and Category:Bridge construction in the United Kingdom and renaming this category Category:Construction of Forth Bridge ACrockford (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Montevideo[edit]

I understand the intent here, but "Ancient" in English suggests thousands of years ago, not hundreds. Should be renamed. Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, here comes my proposal: what about a Category:Historical images of Montevideo? Fadesga (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This doesn't solve the basic problem that there is a arbitrary cut-off between modern and historical images. The usual solution is to make categories Category:Montevideo in the 19th century, Category:Montevideo in the 18th century, compare Category:Cities by century. --rimshottalk 19:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Amphibia in England[edit]

I'm not knowledgeable about this subject, but this category appears to be a duplication of Category:Amphibians of England Which uses a form consistent with it's parent category and its other subcats Oxyman (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Shires in New South Wales[edit]

Unnecessary category and should be upmerged into Local government areas in New South Wales. There is no functional difference between "Shires", "Cities", "Municipalities", "Councils" etc. etc. in the New South Wales system of local government. Mattinbgn (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:White people of Africa[edit]

Since the category "white people" is extremely problematic, any sub cat like this is equally problematic. i have no problem with "african people of european descent" type cats, but not this. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:White people of Kenya[edit]

Since the category "white people" is extremely problematic, any sub cat like this is equally problematic. i have no problem with "african people of european descent" type cats, but not this. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:White people of South Africa[edit]

Since the category "white people" is extremely problematic, any sub cat like this is equally problematic. i have no problem with "african people of european descent" type cats, but not this. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The equivalent Wikipedia category is w:en:Category:White South African people. The term "white" is used for self-identification, in census forms and employment equity legislation. The term "European" was synonymous with "white" many years ago but is no longer in common use. I would prefer that the category is consistent with the Wikipedia category. HelenOnline 08:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I see your point. the term White African people seems to be in common traditional use, at least in those countries in the south african region. your suggestion for aligning the names along wp standards makes sense. I wont withdraw, as i want to be sure that anyone interested chimes in, but i do support this idea in principle.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:White people of Zambia[edit]

Since the category "white people" is extremely problematic, any sub cat like this is equally problematic. i have no problem with "african people of european descent" type cats, but not this. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:White people of Zimbabwe[edit]

Since the category "white people" is extremely problematic, any sub cat like this is equally problematic. i have no problem with "african people of european descent" type cats, but not this. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Construction of The Berczy[edit]

This category was created today, by a robot. That robot moved elements from the existing Category:Construction of Toronto's Berczy Apartments. But neither the edit summary that created the new category, or the edit summaries that transferred the elements from the existing category to the new category gives any clues as to when and where a discussion over deprecating the existing category took place, or whose idea the deprecation was. The edit summary said: "given reason: 'consistent with parent category, possessive forms not used for disambiguation'".

I don't know why whomever thought deprecating the old category was a good idea didn't initiate a discussion here of the old category. Geo Swan (talk) 08:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Geo, honestly. First, people don't need discussions for maintenance work to make a cat consistent with the rest of the category tree. Especially in case like this where the subcats were fixed to be consistent with the parent category name which you yourself created! (And I checked, and you had used the correct name when you set up a parent cat for this building) We have this discussion again and again and again, and we wouldn't if you simply took more care when you created subcategories (it would save us all so much maintenance work). Subcats need to match the parent cat - if you think the existing category naming structure for any given subject is wrong, then by all means so say - everyone working on Toronto-related categories respects your local knowledge. If you want to fix an incorrect name, ping me any time and I will do it for you right away. Much better than creating a category structure where you refer to the same subject different ways in the same small category tree (you also disambiguate by year and place using a variety of different forms, also within the same category tree - BTW, since when do we disambiguate with the possessive form???). For the L Tower, you created subcats such that the category names referred to the same building three different ways in half a dozen cats - how do you expect other users to find the right category using hotcat? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
This is just sad. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
What do you want to discuss? Do you oppose the move? --rimshottalk 10:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:ANZ banks in Australia[edit]

Propose move to Category:ANZ Bank buildings in Australia. These are buildings used by banks, not banks - Banks are organisations Mattinbgn (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's consistent with the higher level categories, see Category:Banks and Category:Bank buildings. If you think one or both of those should be changed, I suggest starting a discussion there. --ghouston (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I may even agree with you that the current usage is confusing and should be changed. "Bank building" wouldn't be the right term though. Think of a random office skyscraper that happens to have the branch of a bank in the ground floor. It's still an office building, not a bank building. It has a bank retail outlet. Maybe "Bank branches", which may or may not be a subcategory of Shops? The present use of "Bank buildings" for bank headquarters etc., could be replaced with "Bank headquarters" which would be a subcategory of Category:Corporate headquarters. Or they could just be placed in Corporate headquarters directly without a subcategory. Then you've got office buildings occupied by banks which aren't their headquarters, I don't know if there's any need for a separate category for these, they can be categorised to the specific bank and to the Office buildings categories. --ghouston (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Greydon Square[edit]

What is the point of having a category for one file? --Jakob (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Others may add other files to it in the future. He does, after all, have his own Wikipedia article. Nightscream (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
We have lots of one file categories. If there is a concern about them, a general discussion is needed.
Furthermore, one file categories are useful to organize subject related categories (e.g. 1981 births) separate from image related categories (e.g. men looking left). This makes easier to make sure that future images about the same subject will have the right categories.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Lüssumer Beeke[edit]

Delete! I created the category erroneously because I found 19 files with te wanted category "Lüssumer Beeke", but this seems to be a local name for part of the de:Blumenthaler Aue rather than a tributary of it. The name "Lüssumer Beeke" doesn't appear in any publication on the web. --Olaf Studt (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, delete! Wrong information. There is no water body called „Lüssumer Beeke“. The shown stream is named „Dierksgraben“. Please look at [3] and [4]. --Quarz (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

sorry, this is bullshit. User:Quarz is free to create a category:Dierksgraben if he want ...
this category was created only for special photos supported by WMDe. -- Dtuk (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Do'nt say sorry while insulting! The only bullshit is the name „Lüssumer Beeke“. But „Dierksgraben“ is fact!
BTW: This category doesn't meet the rules for WMDE supported pctures - see Category:Supported by Wikimedia Deutschland --Quarz (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Liao dynasty[edit]

Recently moved from Category:Liao Dynasty. On Commons all Chinese dynasties are consistently capitalized as "XXX Dynasty", and whether or not "dynasty" is preferable to "Dynasty" (as was recently decided on en:wp), individual categories should not be renamed to use lowercase "dynasty" without discussion. BabelStone (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Monuments and memorials by commemoration[edit]

Is there any reason we would not rename this category, all all associated subcats, to "Monuments and memorials by subject" (which is more in keeping with our general category naming conventions)? I can't think of a reason off hand, but wanted to canvass opinion in the event I have missed something.

I ask this question well aware of the fact that I was the one who created this category in the first place. However, I did a lot of the early leg work when we merged the separate Monuments and Memorials category trees into Category:Monuments and memorials, and at the time I largely replicated the most common best practices from the thousands of categories involved, which IRCC is where "by commemoration" came from. At the time, "by commemoration" made more sense to me than "by subject", but I can't recall why.Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Edifício do Montepio Geral[edit]

This category name should have the city name (Oporto) added, as there are buildings of this bank in every city in Portugal and as it is the category name is ambiguous. 15:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The renaming proposal above was contributed by me, after my session suddenly closed. Ever since Vector was excreted, unified login has been messed up in this and many ways. -- Tuválkin 15:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Shouldn't this be English and plural "Montepio Geral buildings in Porto"? Or is there only one? --rimshottalk 18:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a specific building, with its own monument protection status and all that — the current category name comes from an acritical transcription from the legal description, which is unique only at municipality level (typical WLM brainfart). You’re however right — the best wording for this category should be even more specific and include also the street location. I suggest now
Edifício do Montepio Geral (Av. Aliados)
(No need to indicate the city, too, as this is unique enough.) It will be bagged inside a new Category:Montepio Geral buildings in Oporto, whenever there’s a need for it. -- Tuválkin 20:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. I would prefer "Porto" to "Oporto", though, as it is more usual in English and consistent with Category:Porto. --rimshottalk 21:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually Oporto is a proper English word, with several centuries of use. I prefer it, but I’m too respectful of other people’s choices to go and change it where it is already in use. -- Tuválkin 00:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Egyptian Arabic dialect[edit]

Wiktionary-style usage of categories. Basically this is a category of category names by their etymological origin when translated/transliterated to Egyptian Arabic. Unless we want to do this for every single language and dialect out there all of this cats's subcats should be deleted.--Kathovo (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Egyptian Arabic dialect is not a Language by itself but a dialect. Starting categories that explain the meanings of the terminology would be helpful in my own opinion. Notice also that i have chosen words that are derived from other languages to show the words in the original language as much as possible. I wished to provide more explanation only.--Ashashyou (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand you good intentions, but you can best provide etymological data in wiktionary.--Kathovo (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Former buildings by country[edit]

This is a container discussion for subcategories (because nominating subcategories is a pain). The subcategories here are either named "Former buildings in country X" or "Former buildings and structures in country X". Which of those two variants should we keep? Once we reach a consensus, all the categories not meeting the chosen variant should be mass renamed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Piotrus, this category should be containing ONLY buildings still existing but that lost their original purpose (for example a former sports venues, abandoned or discontinued but not demolished yet), or have it changed (for example a stadium renewed and used as playground, apartments building and so on. In no way it should include destroyed, demolished, bombed - or anything else - buildings. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
PS Of course I agree with you about the request for consistent nomenclature in the whole category tree.
I don't understand this category. There is really no such thing as a "former building". If you mean a building that has been removed (torn down, razed, destroyed), then "former" doesn't work. If you mean a building that has a new use, as in a church that is now a condo residences or offices, then "repurposed" is the current jargon, but, as you can see, the spell checker doesn't recognize it, so it may not be the best word here. Perhaps "buildings with a new use" would do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thus Jim I guess that only a native speaker of English can find an effective way to solve this problem. The whole thing looks inconsistent to me too. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Protestos contra o aumento das tarifas de transporte público no Brasil em 2013[edit]

Category name is not in English, as per policy. However, I'm not sure how to translate the name. Auntof6 (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I am Brazilian. A literal translation for that name could be "Protests against the public transport tax rise in Brazil in 2013". It is named after a movement that got started because of the tax rise. However, the protests grew so much bigger, and many (myself included) believe the name is no longer appropriate. The article about the movement in Portuguese (Protestos no Brasil em 2013) and in English (2013 protests in Brazil) have both been renamed. However, I don't this it should be merged with Category:Demonstrations and protests in Brazil in 2013, because some pictures in that are completely unrelated. Therefore, I propose we rename the category in question "June Journeys" or "June Journeys in Brazil in 2013", since that is another popular name for the movement which is mentioned in the English Wikipedia article. And whatever we decide, we can't forget to also rename this other category. Mateussf (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


Generic categories must be expressed in the plural form. Here in the Category:Murders that already exists. DenghiùComm (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Cathy Richards)
Hi Cathy Richards. What you have done here is wrong ! Consider that in Commons the categories must be expressed in the plural form. I will be greatful if you may revert what you have done. Thank you very much. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Murder is a perfectly good uncountable noun, much like, say, architecture. There's absolutely no need to change it to refer to the individual acts instead of the overarching idea.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

wikt:Murder is just like Category:Architecture; it's an uncountable noun describing an abstract idea not subject to pluralization.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO there needs consistency: in the subcats of this category; and in the rules of categorizations in Commons. --DenghiùComm (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you understood the words that I have written? I can't tell, because you don't seem to be responding to my statements.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, "murder" isn't uncountable per se, just like "architecture" isn't. There are two meanings, the countable act of murder, as in Category:Ratcliff Highway murders and the crime of murder as a general concept, which is uncountable. Category:Murder is clearly about the latter, that's why singular is correct, in my opinion. --rimshottalk 06:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral: The word "murder" is a bit unusual, as both "murder" (uncountable) and "murders" (plural) — and "murdering" (gerund) — can all refer to murder as an idea; but specific incidents can only be called "a murder" (countable singular) or "murders" (plural). I can see why User:DenghiùComm would be confused, because we seem to have put both the concept of murder, and then specific incidents, both in this category; and a category with specific examples usually have plural countable-noun categories. On the other hand, most of those have only a countable noun anyway, and so there is no conceptual uncountable noun in English to think about. It might be useful to have a category for murder(s) as a concept, then a subcategory for specific murders; but that doesn't solve the noun problem, because it could still be the same with or without a subcategory. --Closeapple (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Construction in Toronto, Queen's Quay, east of Yonge[edit]

development in 2014
development in 2014
development in 2013
development in 2013

There are several bots that people are employing to rearrange the category structure. User:SteinsplitterBot was recently used to take the elements from subcategories of Category:Construction in Toronto, Queen's Quay, east of Yonge and place them in similarly structured subcategories of Category:Roadworks on Queens Quay, Toronto. Here are two: [5], [6].

Organizing our content in a consistent and descriptive manner, so potential users can find the content they want, is extremely important. I detected the work of this rogue bot when I went to add more images that belonged in the subcategories it deprecated. I knew I had started categories for those kinds of images, and I was frankly very angry that someone had obfuscated those categories, replacing them with narrow and inappropriate ones.

One day we well have a means for organizing content that is superior to the existing category system, which really sucks.

I shouldn't have to manually undo the work of robots. I shouldn't have to try and figure out which files a bot has put into the wrong categories, as I did here.

In this particular case Category:Roadworks on Queens Quay, Toronto was created presumably because those two images do show roadwork. So I have no objection to adding a roadwork category to those images. But the buildings in the background are part of a large development. It may not be apparent in the 2014 images that they weren't complete, but they weren't complete, still aren't complete.

I think SteinsplitterBot, and similar bots, are too powerful. They are not being used accountably. They do not leave edit summaries that state what policy or discussion some real life human being thought authorized their action.

I think it is 100 percent clear that whoever thought Category:Roadworks on Queens Quay, Toronto should replace Category:Construction in Toronto, Queen's Quay, east of Yonge had gone off half-cocked. Geo Swan (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Geo, I so very much wish that you would create categories in a consistent manner so that users can find what they want. But you don't. You sometimes misspell words (in this case, you misspelled the name of the street in question and added a superfluous "east of Yonge" even though Queens Quay East only extends east of Yonge), you often adopt unique and unusual forms of disambiguation which you then randomly vary, and you often refer to the article subject various ways in the same small category tree. And then when other editors are forced to spend hours cleaning up after you, you complain, you make false accusations, you give the impression that you have ownership issues, and you get distracted by red herrings (not sure why you are focused on bots, when basic clean-up is done any number of ways, ranging from cat-a-lot to manual). You initiate dozens of these (lengthy, lengthy) discussions, yet not once have you left a short note saying "hey, that's not what I intended. Can we adjust it?". So tiresome. If you simply were consistent, stopped making silly accusations and decided to work collaboratively, you would find this all so much easier. It would be so much easier for all of us.

In this particular case, we have separate categories for roadworks. As for buildings, our standard approach is to categorize by building. That's how we do it - please be consistent. If you have enough construction images to warrant it, then by all means create construction subcategories for the developments in question. Please make sure that you get the development name correctly. The pictures you posted in this discussion are of Pier 27. I see you also have some photos of Monde and Bayside. If you then think there is enough content to warrant a parent category for construction along a particular street, then do so in a manner consistent with all of the existing category trees (in this case, it would be Category:Construction on Queens Quay East, Toronto. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:San Francisco earthquake of 1868[edit]

should be Category:1868 Hayward earthquake, per current convention. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I was asked to comment. I have no problem with that change. - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • thought everyone would be aboard this. i will be glad to make all the manual changes once approved.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Art by subject[edit]

The sub-cats are poorly named: Files should be placed in "Category:X in art" because they are of an artwork that shows X, not because the files shows X in a work of art. This distinction matters, because all photographs qualify as "artworks" and if all photos were included in "X in art" the category would be useless.

Suggest renaming all subcategories from "<subject> in art" to "Artworks of <subject>". This also brings it the cat into line with related cats like Category:Paintings by subject and Category:Photography by subject, which are this way around already.

Note: Related discussion on VP--Nilfanion (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand where is the problem. We have subjects shown in photographs or in art (sculptures, paintings, drawings, engravings, etc.). A photograph can be artistic but usually it's not, it's simply a shot. Until the nineteenth century, all subjects (or objects) were represented in art (people, animals, plants, cities, landscapes, etc..). Then it was invented the photograph. Today we have to distinguish between the two ways, because in a work of art there is always the ability, the intention, the inspiration, and the will of an artist. In the photographs less, it tends more to be an objective picture. Of course there are subjects who still are only artistic (mythology, deities, most of the saints, etc..). So I Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose with the renaming of the categories of art by subject. Actually we have a good system, where the category of the subject gives the current photographs of it, the category "Historical images of the subject" gives old photographs, the category "Subject in art" gives images of the subject prior to the 19th century. As an example I can recommend going to see the categories of Italy: all Italy is so organized. --DenghiùComm (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem is a photograph is an artwork. For example, Ansel Adams was a hugely significant artist, and his works should be in the category showing artworks of California. The artistic quality of a photo, or a painting, sculpture (or anything else) is subjective of course and the vast majority of photos are not fine art. However, photographs are part of art - and to say we have subjects shown in photos or in art is flat wrong.
The difference between File:Mona Lisa.jpg and an equivalent (but obviously unavailable) photo of the subject is simple: The first is categorised as an artwork first (its a painting by da Vinci etc). The non-existent photo would be categorised by the subject first (its a woman).
To say we have (main cat)= current photos, historical images = old photos, art = pre-photo stuff is clearly wrong too. Where would a modern landscape painting go?
With regards to the strong oppose, where's the harm in changing? The objective is to keep these categories for significant artworks that are (usually) not photos.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

For clarity proposal is to (for example) move Category:Italy in art to Category:Artworks of Italy, and not change the content of the category in any way. This has following benefits:

  1. Consistency with similar categories like Category:Paintings of Italy‎, Category:Maps of Italy‎ or Category:Photographs of Italy‎
  2. Emphasises that the content shows artworks, and these artworks show Italy as the subject. (Instead of saying that the file shows Italy, and it happens to be on an artwork)
  3. Allows photographs that show Italy to be included when they are actual, known, artworks, without opening the door to all photos of Italy (which would dilute cat to uselessness).

If "Artworks of Italy" is too ambiguous, a more precise phrasing would be "Artworks depicting Italy", which make it completely clear what the content is.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In the related VP discussion, that you linked above, you said that the category:Art only applies to fine art, and not photographs in general, for example. Doesn't this make "Italy in Art" fine, since Art is understood as fine art? Artworks of Italy would be quite ambiguous with Art of Italy, and Artworks depicting Italy is rather verbose compared to Italy in Art. --ghouston (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure where that quote is from - I said Category:Art includes Category:Photography and Category:Diagrams as subcategories - its not just "fine art" but "all art". In any case, "fine art" is not "all art that isn't photography", fine-art photography is definitely "fine art". The boundary between fine-art photography (abundant on Flickr, even if it has no educational value) and photojournalism (preferred for general Wikipedia usage) is fuzzy, there isn't a hard line saying "was a camera used?". Surely stamps are applied art, yet they are included in these art-by-subject categories.
I agree "Artwork depicting Italy" is verbose. The advantages are it puts the primary term first, and the qualifying term second - its more an "artwork (depicting Italy)" than "Italy (on an artwork)", and IMO is a stronger phrasing (implying Italy is a subject of the artwork and isn't just incidental). The other benefit of avoiding a short title like "Art in Italy", "Italy in art", "Art of Italy", which all have distinct meanings that could be confused, even by native English speakers; and the relatively subtle distinctions easily be missed in translation. A stronger English phrasing avoids those difficulties.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, it was somebody else who used the term "fine art". "Artwork depicting Italy" would at least make sense if these categories were subcategories of Category:Art works as I mention below. --ghouston (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I do think the category should be renamed to "Art works by subject" and it should be a subcategory of Category:Art works. --ghouston (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This assumes that we want "Art works by subject" to be restricted to visual arts, and not include works of literature, film, etc., that may also have relevant subjects. At least as the categories are set up, "Art works" is a subcategory of Category:Visual arts. --ghouston (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:GWR 2800s of Great Western Railway[edit]

Tautological duplication of categories. The GWR 2800 Class cat is adequate itself. The GWR is the Great Western Railway. Also these aren't "trains", they're locomotives. This isn't a trivial distinction, even if Thomas doesn't care, some editors here do. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This is to distinguish from GWR 2800 Class locomotives operated by British Railways or in preservation. This matches the categorisation applied to British Rail diesel and electric locomotives and rolling stock such as Category:British Rail Class 43s of British Rail. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
What a completely pointless waste of time and effort. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Geof Sheppard. There is part of a larger category structure which is standardised across all UK mainline trains (well, getting there anyway). While I do not doubt that it occasionally delivers categories which may at first glance seem a bit odd (Category:British Rail Class 378s of London Overground being an example, as all class 378s are London Overground), I feel it is important to be consistent. Further, as Geof states, this particular category allows people to specifically get GWR-operated trains (eg historic ones) rather than those of British Rail (slightly less historic) or in preservation (modern). -mattbuck (Talk) 21:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Trains of Great Western Railway[edit]

Is this "trains" (a reasonable cat), or (as it seems to be collecting lately), locomotives instead. The two are not the same and should not be cross-categorized like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

While it is sub-categorised by locomotive class, this is the same format as used by the other 86 categories which share the parent Category:Trains of the United Kingdom by operator. If there are images of Great Western Railway trains where the locomotive is not visible then they should go into this category too. Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Geof Sheppard. There is part of a larger category structure which is standardised across all UK mainline trains (well, getting there anyway). While I do not doubt that it occasionally delivers categories which may at first glance seem a bit odd (Category:British Rail Class 378s of London Overground being an example, as all class 378s are London Overground), I feel it is important to be consistent. In this particular example this allows consistency with all other train operator categories. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Who is asking any other than keeping this?
The question is what's it for? At present it seems to be becoming a parent category for Category:Great Western Railway steam locomotives, which we already have as a correct category. This might be a valid category for trains, we don't need it as a parent category for locomotives.
As a minor (but still valid) point, "Trains of Great Western Railway" is grammatically obnoxious. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
'Great Western Railway locomotives' actually contains locomotives of Great Western Railway design but only a very small proporation are actually images of them while owned by the Great Western Railway - for the Category:GWR 4073 Class only about 1% are GWR-era images.
Oh, and I not especially fond of the grammar either (it feels as though it should be Trains of the Great Western Railway) but it is consistent with the other categories.Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
All together now, A fooolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
There is no need for this "consistency" whatsoever. MediaWiki works by cat membership, not by text pattern matching. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
"'Great Western Railway locomotives' actually contains locomotives of Great Western Railway design "
No, it shouldn't contain any locomotives at all. It contains categories instead, as this should be a meta-category.
The categories it contains belong there. They have some useful functional relationship with being "Great Western Railway locomotives". That's all we need. We do not then need to obsessively nit-pick the transitive relationships to each image file, and remove or relocate them if they're photographed post-1948.
Doing that is pointless. Our metadata schema (any metadata schema) identifies the creation date for an image. If you want Saints in BR service, then search for Saintliness by category membership and operator by date. No need to split categories.
Doing that is harmful (and this is a regular bugbear at WP). Now we no longer have a useful category for Category:GWR 2800 Class, instead we have two sub categories, filled with identical photos of long grey locos in the West of England. There is a use cases for "Show me the 28xx" and now we can no longer serve that. Any use case for 28xx in GWR / BR service is extremely trivial in comparison.
Worst of all though, we're treating locos as trains. By the time the ignorant sub-humanoid 'bots have come along and stripped transitive categories because they think they're implied (even when they aren't) we'll lose half of this altogether because one will be seen as implying the other. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


Moved from help desk

There are two categories with different meanings: Category:Snuffers and Category:Snuffers in art. It's more likely they will become disambiguation categories pointing to Category:Candle snuffers and Category:Snuffers (person) (or other more suitable names). But the problem doesn't end there, candle snuffers category is connected to Category:Candle lighting but categorized as an object to extinguish; snuffers in art is connected to Category:People by activity and Category:Snuff but not connected to any verb. Which verb would be appropriate and which category name to describe that action? Do verb gerunds snuffing or sniffing exist? In wikipedia, snuff is categorized as smoking. My doubt about that is it is smoking tobacco by inhalation, so I wonder if smoking is the appropriate action/activity to use as parent category. How to handle this problem? --Humatiel (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Moved from help desk

Humatiel (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Category:Bike Share Toronto[edit]

Like many large cities Toronto experimented with rental bikes -- where the kiosks were branded with the Bixi brand name. Recently, financial problems lead to the City of Toronto taking a financial stake, or a larger financial stake in the program. This, in turn, seems to have lead to the program being rebranded.

In his classic influential novel, 1984, George Orwell described a distopia where history was constantly being rewritten, for dark purposes. The novel is famous enough that this kind of rewriting is called "Orwellian". So, how much sense does it make to rename categories of existing pictures when simply due to reorganizations, or renamings?

In my opinion these kinds of renamings are a disservice to ordinary visitors to the commons, as it implies they are aware of the organizational changes one should really only count on insiders, cognoscenti, those who follow that file, would know. One of Toronto's main theatres has been rebranded at least three times. For decades it was known as the "OKeefe Centre", then, for a decade or so, it was the "Hummingbird Centre", and now it is the "Sony Centre". In my opinion images taken of the theatre when it was known as the OKeefe Centre should be in a category for the OKeefe Centre; images taken when it was known as the Hummingbird Centre should be in a category for Hummingbird Centre. I think this is particularly important in images where the brand name is visible in the image. When the name in the photo doesn't match the category name it represents a constant temptation to correct the error -- particularly for those unaware of the arcane history of the theatre.

With regard to the Bixi kiosks, in my opinion all images taken before the renaming still belong in the Bixi category tree, and I suggest even images taken after the rebranding, that still bear the bixi name, belong in the bixi category tree.

Currently, very few categories have any expository text offering guidance as to what images should or shouldn't be added to them. It is a weakness. Following this discussion, whatever conclusion is reached, it will be essential that some expository text be added to these categories, to inform readers that there have been renamings.

Consider Category:Republic of Texas, in my opinion, it is appropriate that its members were not shoehorned into the category for Texas the American State. It was missing a schema, for I took a crack at drafting one. Geo Swan (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the Bixi category should still be retained, but there is no need to create a sub-category for every bike station. They are referred to as "station" not "kiosk" by the operators. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I was not aware that the operators wanted them to be called "stations", and I have no objection to calling them stations, not kiosks.
As to whether there is any need for separate sub-categories for separate stations -- when a category reaches a certain threshold number of images finding the one you want is difficult, and it makes sense to break the super-category up into sub-categories. Contributors may differ on where that threshold is.
If someone was to argue that they couldn't imagine why someone would want to just look at images from a specific location -- I am afraid I would have to try to find a tactful way to tell them I thought they were manifesting a "failure of imaginations". Geo Swan (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Geo, I can't disagree more strongly. It's hard enough getting content in the correct categories without creating separate categories under different names for the same thing. With all due respect, your proposal is a far worse disservice to users because it requires them to have an understanding of the corporate and branding history of the category subject to figure out why the categories are organized the way they are. If the name changes, use redirects and hatnotes to make sure people get to the correct category. There is zero need to have separate categories for images of the same station and bikes because one month they have one logo and then a different logo the next month.

    And I agree with Secondarywaltz - there is no need to create separate categories for each station (stations that can, and do, get moved over time) until there is consensus to do so. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sakura in the United States[edit]

I think this should be renamed Category:Cherry blossom festivals in the United States, per using english names for categories. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"Sakura" translates as "cherry blossom/s", not "cherry blossom festival", so the correct rename would be Category:Cherry blossoms in the United States. - BanyanTree 19:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sakura by country[edit]

Should be renamed Category:Cherry blossoms by country, and we may also need Category:Cherry blossom festivals by country Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, for me it's fine as you propose, Mercurywoodrose. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Aerial views of Malmö[edit]

This category should probably be moved to "Aerial photographs of Malmö" to follow naming standards Mippzon (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


This Cat is redundant to Category:Ukrainian trident in heraldry or vice versa. Perhelion (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Road signs by alphabet[edit]

A good category, but the current name is confusing. If I didn't know better, I would assume this category would include "Cyrillic road signs", "Greek road signs", "Latin road signs", etc. We could improve the situation by changing it to "Letters on road signs", or "Latin letters on road signs" if we want to be picky. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The category seems questionable. It seems like I can take any random road sign, say this one, and place it in subcategories H, U, N, G, etc. Worse, I can take every combination of letters and make a subcategories like Category:DAP (on road sign). I'd say at best it should be a subcategory of Category:Highway signs, and perhaps merged with Category:Road signs by number to give something like "Highway signs by identifier". --ghouston (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems that highways are generally numbered, with optional prefix and suffix letters. Category:Number 10 on highway signs, perhaps should go in "Highway signs by number"? Then add "Highway signs by prefix letters" and "Highway signs by suffix letters"? --ghouston (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:American craftsman style in the United States[edit]

This category, and its children, have a highly confusing array of name formats: we need to pick one format and stick with it for all of them. Whatever name we decide to use for this parent category ought to be followed by all the children as well.

Right now, there are five different name formats being used:

  • "American Craftsman architecture" is used for twelve states: Alabama‎, Arkansas‎, California, Iowa‎, Massachusetts‎, Nebraska‎, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia‎. There's also a Washington, D.C. category with this format.
  • "American craftsman style" is used for eight states: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Kansas‎, Kentucky, Ohio‎, Oklahoma‎, and Washington. There's also a Bloomington, Indiana subcategory with this format.
  • "American Craftsman style" is used for Delaware.
  • "American Craftsman Style" in used for Tennessee‎.

Fifth, we have the "Craftsman architecture in the United States‎" category and its Illinois subcategory.

I'm partial toward "American Craftsman architecture". Capitalise "Craftsman" because it's part of the name of the style: it's a proper noun, not simply a description. Use "architecture" because this is a kind of architecture, not simply a general class of buildings; virtually everything in Category:Architecture of the United States by style uses "architecture" in the name. However, keeping the current name and moving everything else there would be preferable to the current chaos.

Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur, I greatly prefer "America Craftsman architecture in...". Whatever happens, though, we should also include Category:American Craftsman style in Canada and its subcategories as well.
There are some architectures that are referred to as 'style' or 'movement,' I'm not sure why. E.g. Eastlake Movement, International style, Modern movement, Stick style, etc. Perhaps they could be modified, such as "International style architecture in..." Fungus Guy (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I too prefer architecture over style, mainly because the latter can also refer to many kinds of design—furniture, clothing, type, you name it—sometimes from the same “school” or “movement” as an architectural expression. Where the name is compound I’d rather see a hyphen, as in International-style architecture, but I wouldn’t fight over it. And I agree about the capital C.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sculptures of male horses[edit]

This category intersection is unnecessary, so it should be split into two separate categories. Jarble (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Strictly "necessary" or not, seems a reasonable intersection of 2 cats, is populated and potentially useful to some. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Calicotome intermedia[edit] and 20:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? --rimshottalk 20:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Calicotome intermedia C. Presl is a synonym of Calicotome infesta subsp. intermedia (C.Presl) Greuter. 10:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
What do you propose? Renaming the category? --rimshottalk 18:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Calicotome intermedia is accepted by, wich is the most prestigious publication of iberian flora.

--Nanosanchez (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there maybe an international authority on species naming? Wikispecies doesn't go deep enough, unfortunately. --rimshottalk 18:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure, but I don't think so.--Nanosanchez (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)--Nanosanchez (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:260 mm track gauge[edit]

Rename to Category:10¼ in gauge railways (or near variant) per en:Category:10¼ in gauge railways. "260mm" is a Wiki neologism. This is a long established imperial unit gauge, "10¼ in". Even under the German NEM 010 system it is termed "X gauge", not 260mm. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Express rail services[edit]

This category seems not to be educational useful. It is a random and incoherent collection of photographs. There seems not to be some basic logic system behind it. Better do delete it. This may apply also to the subcategories 15:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Copying from another discussion:
What on earth is this catgeory meant to represent? The British photos you added seem entirely random. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It is meant to aggregate categories about express services, prompted by my creation of Category:Express trams in Brussels. I run a quick search and from it I added a few images and a couple of categories to it to “seed” the idea. The images I selected, based on their descriptions, show coaches, cars, and locos assigned to express services (i.e., routes/services which wont stop on every station & halt). Of course, proper categorization of this notion needs to be done through categories for each rail named service within each network/company, but it is a start. (And this discussion better in the talk page, right?) -- Tuválkin 09:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Have a couple more ;) YLSS (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This should offer a foundation for debate. -- Tuválkin 15:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not different from other subcategories (companies - by country, people from XXX by profession). IMHO useful and a Symbol keep vote.svg keeper --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - This seems like a really stupid idea to me. So "express" is for anything which on occasion omits one or more stations. That's pretty much every train in Britain. Hell, even branch line trains omit services (eg 1/3 Severn Beach Line trains omit Lawrence Hill), but no one would call such trains express services (SBL services max out at 30mph). Then let us consider the example of First Capital Connect services from London to Cambridge. There are two distinct services - one which stops at all stations, one which is fast. But they're both routed the same way, they look identical, there is no way to tell them apart unless you actually see it stopped at a station. On the other hand it would include every train operated by East Coast, Virgin Trains or CrossCountry, and most of the trains operated by everyone else! This category is completely unworkable. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree. Of course, some more strict criteria should be introduced (or maybe a more clarifying name), but it is not uncommon to mark express trains differently from ordinary ones. To provide an example from my locality: this and this are express trains that make 2 and 4 stops instead of 10 and 45, respectively, and are painted yellow in contrast to ordinary green. Category:Aeroexpress similarly hosts pictures of trains that are markedly different from ordinary ones. YLSS (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Mattbuck, I supposed you’d be familiarized with the concept of an express service in railway context, you being a kind of a buff of these matters. Your arguments seem to say that there’s no way to apply this concept to British trains. I take that at face value, but you can at least agree that this category makes sense as an umbrella for subcats discriminating between regular service and express service within systems where such distinction is clear-cut, or not? As you know, there is no need to delete the category in order to remove from it individual images and subcategories. -- Tuválkin 13:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, as per above. -- Tuválkin 16:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: It should be made clear whether and mattbuck are the same person. If so, the latter’s vote should not be counted commulatively with the nomination. -- Tuválkin 16:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
So now you're accusing me of being a sockpuppeteer. Lovely. No, the nominator was not me - you yourself complained that I started replying on your talk page after this DR was started. And furthermore, I do not give enough of a shit about anything on Commons to go to the efforts you are accusing me of. I have a life outside of this place. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No, I’m not accusing you of being a sockpuppeteer. However you could have unknowingly be signed off and showing up as when filing in the DR, it happens to many people. And you could be adding a {{vd}} without knowing that the nomination itself already counts as a vote. Anyway, the matter is closed as far as I’m concerned and your word is more than enough for me to believe that and mattbuck are different users, entitled to a vote each on this matter. (I noticed the Mattbuck before, twice when he was at the recieving end of particularly unpleasant smear campaings, and that put me immediately on his side. That doesn’t mean I don’t think he’s totally wrong on this discussion here.) -- Tuválkin 19:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Modified Nuvola icons[edit]

It is completely unclear for what this category is now. All SVG in there are moved to category:Nuvola SVG icons‎ So it's only for PNG??? See Commons_talk:Project_Nuvola_2.0+#Categories Perhelion (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


The category contains James Macpherson (author of the principal source on the subject) which cat in turn contains Ossian. This recursion violates the “hierarchical principle”; the question is which needs to be removed from the other. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cupid Stadium[edit]

Isn't this simply the "Amur Stadion" in Blagoveshchensk, Amur Oblast? "Cupid" seems to be an overzealous translation attempt. Move to Category:Amur Stadium. Lupo 08:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Filetype icons[edit]

This category need a big and clear description. As we can see in the subcategories there is a completely chaos! Maybe it is need to hint to MIME/file types and maybe rename/split the subcategories. -- Perhelion 18:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The same for the parent Category:File icons, it need a demarcation to this. -- Perhelion 20:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like this is intended to be a meta-category, and so should really be renamed Category:Icons by filetype. - dcljr (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Or Category:File icons by filetype?? Hmm... - dcljr (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bodega Bay, California[edit]

Looks like a duplicate of Category:Bodega Bay. May be merge or give some explaination of what the deferentiation is. Keith D (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Bodega Bay refers to the landform. Bodega Bay, California refers to the village near the north end of the bay. -Stepheng3 (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Contemporary museum of calligraphy[edit]

This should be renamed to Contemporary Museum of Calligraphy Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Native American Sacred Site[edit]

duplicate in essense of Category:Native American religious places Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:International borders[edit]

Shouldn't subcategories follow the country1–country2 border (mdash ndash) scheme instead of the country1-country2 border (ndash hyphen), like they do on en.WP?    FDMS  4    16:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean n-dash (–) instead of hyphen (-)? M-dash (—) is quite a bit longer. --rimshottalk 19:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed :) . Looks like I'm not as knowledgable as I pretended to be :) .    FDMS  4    19:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that while the en-dash may be grammatically more correct, the hyphen isn't really wrong, so that there's no pressing need to replace existing categories. For new or renamed categories, the en-dash should be used. --rimshottalk 20:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Apiales in Slovenia[edit]

Originally nominated for deleton by User:BotBln with the rationale such category not needed.    FDMS  4    18:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. In general, I think that as we do list all the species living in a certain country in scholarly literature (e.g. for Slovenia, that would be Mala flora Slovenije), the same would be very usable here: to have a collection of images of (all) plants living in a certain country. Large categories don't really allow to easy search for relevant material; it's like a needle in a haystack. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Goulas Akrotiri[edit]

Appears to be a duplicate of Goulas Castle; mentioning the placename seems unneccessary, particularly considering it’s already categorized under Akrotiri. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Other buildings in New London, Connecticut[edit]

See discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/05/Category:Other buildings in Urbana, Illinois Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There isn't even a Category:Buildings in New London, Connecticut. Therefore, I propose renaming to Category:Buildings in New London, Connecticut and adding Category:Churches in New London, Connecticut and Category:Historic buildings in New London, Connecticut. --rimshottalk 22:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, in line with the other recent decisions on "other buildings" categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Catholic spirituality[edit]

Unnecessary, contains only 1 subcat which has other better parents Fayenatic london (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Strand Theatre[edit]

It should be deleted because it has only one file; if kept, it should be called "Category:Strand Theatre (Syracuse, N. Y.)" to distinguish it from all the other categories called "Strand Theatre". Vzeebjtf (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The cat is now empty, because a new cat was created, Category:Strand Theatre (Syracuse, New York), and the single file in this cat has been moved there. The remaining question is, Should the old cat be deleted, or turned into a disambiguation page? Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I support turning it into a disambiguation page. The English Wikipedia has one: Strand Theatre. Vzeebjtf (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Since I brought it up on the Help Desk, I should register my support here … the other cats I’ve found that would belong are Strand Theatre (Brooklyn), Strand Theatre (Manhattan), and Strand Theatre (Dorchester, Massachusetts). Then there’s Strand Theater, Shreveport, Louisiana, with the more usual American spelling. Any others?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Plain discs[edit]

This category need a clear description (and also in other language) what it is in contrast to Category:Circles. Especially this Template:Navigation Circles by color need a clear note (and also in other language). If there is any difference. It is completely unclear for a not native English speaker. All this against the background that you can not notice any difference in content. -- Perhelion 08:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the only difference is that a disc is filled in, or solid, while a circle is empty, or hollow. I noticed this quite readily from looking at the images in each category. But I agree with the nominator that a clear description would be beneficial. -- OlEnglish (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Hungarian artists in the Western Roman Empire[edit]

Non-sense category. Why would it be relevant to categorize modern photographs according to the territory of the Roman Empire? BrightRaven (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Unnecessary category. Einstein2 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Geographic regions of Canada[edit]

We already have Category:Regions of Canada. This category has only one entry, and it's for regions of a Canadian province, not of Canada itself. Auntof6 (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

We can remove the category here. I actually started the "Geographic regions" categories more thinking about regions that comprise more than one state or country, like the Rocky Mountains or the Gobi Desert.Reykholt (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Category:Portraits with 2 persons[edit]

Grammatically shouldn't this category be "Portraits with 2 people"? Mjrmtg (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No, "persons" is correct in this context. Laura1822 (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Group portraits with 3 persons[edit]

Grammatically shouldn't this category be "Portraits with 3 people"? Same with the rest of the categories under "Group portraits" by number of people. Mjrmtg (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Roundhouse Park[edit]

Category:Roundhouse Park currently has three subcategories Category:Don Station‎, Category:John Street Roundhouse‎ and Category:Toronto Railway Museum‎. I am not suggesting any of these categories are redundant. But I would appreciate the opinion of others as to when an image belongs in Category:Roundhouse Park, and when it belongs in the subcategory Category:Toronto Railway Museum‎. Geo Swan (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a really good question. One we encounter fairly often when we have a category both for a large public space, as well as subcats for elements within the public space. I assume that the trains and rail-related buildings within the park belong to the museum? Assuming that's the case, I'd put close-up photographs of outdoor exhibits (rolling stock, buildings) in the museum category (since those photos primarily pertain to the museum pieces themselves) and the wider-angle shots in the parent park category (even if those photos happen to also capture some of the museum's train cars, etc.). That still doesn't answer what to do with the Don station category, or even whether the museum cat ought to be a subcat of the roundhouse cat. Sometimes these situations give rise to limited exceptions from the COM:OVERCAT rule. There is no correct answer. Your thoughts? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Three Sisters[edit]

Delete existing category (which is a redirect) so Category:Three sisters can be created, like Category:Three brothers. Mjrmtg (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The existing category Three Sisters is in no relation to brothers and sisters, but refers to a special volcano / volcanic system in Oregon which is named Three Sisters. Therefore it is not possible to redirect it in this way.Reykholt (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Agencia Brasil[edit]

It has been requested on Template talk:Agência Brasil#Categoria to change {{Agência Brasil}} so that files are categorized into Category:Photographs by Agência Brasil (only difference is the ê) instead. This change was already attempted in March 2013 but was reverted right away. I am inclined to grant the request as this is a name and the template also contains the non-English ê but wanted to get some feedback from the community first. Should we move this category to the category with ê? Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per general policy cats should be with english name. There may be another policy to avoid special characters in cat names. --Denniss (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The category name is in English except for the agency name. I don't know of any policy to avoid special characters in names, they are usually written with all the special characters they contain. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support since its proper name is Agência Brasil and nothing else, otherwise, you might as well call it "Agency Brazil". Hardly any Wikimedia project strips diacritics from names, only people who don't like them and argue that they don't have such a button on their keyboard (which is why redirects exist). Besides, the target category already exists now and the Commons isn't solely English-language Wiki. Jared Preston (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sound from the United States[edit]

Too little files, I think this ought to be upmerged to Category:Audio files of the United States. And per harmonization issues, as we currently have a lot of "Category:Sound_of" but there's no comparable "Category:Sound_from_<countryname>" to match this category. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Weymouth and Melcombe Regis[edit]

Not a real unit, rather the void left between defined areas. Best to treat the subcats as direct members of cat's parent than go through an artificial construct like this. Nilfanion (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Descriptions at the Bovington Tank Museum[edit]

Derivative works of information boards - Text and 2D artwork not covered by UK FOP. This is complicated by a number of factors:

  1. Photos on the boards may be non-free or PD-old, depending on context. The PD-old photos are worth extracting
  2. Some are clearly non-free like the D Day map
  3. Copyright on the text. I'm not sure how relevant topographic copyright is here, but certainly the textual content of some pass the Threshold of Originality, while others like File:Flickr - davehighbury - Bovington Tank Museum 024.jpg are a list of facts so probably OK.

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete all is not appropriate here, neither should they all be kept...--Nilfanion (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hiking trails in Oregon[edit]

Many more files are in Category:Trails in Oregon, most of them showing hiking trails. I think the best move here is to delete the hiking category. I will move the files in it to the trails category. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I was following the current categorization where other states also have this category to distinguish between hiking, forest and rail trails. If you delete the Oregon specific category, then you also need to consider the same category for all the other states currently in Category:Hiking trails in the United States by state. RedWolf (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


This is POV (most of deleted "Dictators"). Micione (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I created the category. The category currently has the following 7 subcategories:
  • Anti-Irish discrimination
  • Chauvinism
  • Ethnic cleansing
  • Francophobia
  • Homophobia
  • Racism
  • Sexism
Now that I think about it some more, I see no reason they couldn't all be moved up to the parent category, Category:Prejudice, and this category deleted. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague[edit]

Two categories with a similar name (this one and First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University). This one is according to this article more precise. However, it might be the best solution to use the original name in Czech, "1. lékařská fakulta Univerzity Karlovy" (similar to this one). Is it possible to unite both categories and have them renamed to the Czech name? Pavel Dušek (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Blankensee[edit]

Duplication with Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Blankensee (Mecklenburg), see also the lemma of the community in the German wikipedia de:Blankensee (Macklenburg).
This version here without brackets is ambigious, because we have another Community (Gemeinde) with the same name, de:Blankensee (Vorpommern), too. Global Fish (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


Merge with Category:Drysa. In fact it is the same town, but it has two names. --Jarash (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The creator of Category:Verkhnedvinsk said here that he doesn't oppose to merging.--Jarash (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wild animals[edit]

Same as Category:Wildlife this category should be redirected to Category:Nature because almost all animals are wild animals. Smooth_O (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

wildlife is similar to nature but not the same. All creatures are part of nature. Domestic or imprisoned (zoos) animals are also part of nature. They are not part of the wildlife. I suggest not to delete wild animals and redir. it to wildlife (for now). Category:Wildlife should not be redirected to Category:Nature and remain as a separate category if not deleted. But I'm not an expert for biology. --Mattes (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Textures (computer graphics)[edit]

This category seems to have no particular purpose. Currently it contains some random computer generated files without much of a theme. Also, what is the difference between this category and the (widely used) category Textures? The description of the latter category makes it clear that it is intented for textures that can be used in computer graphics. Sebari (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I created the category because the category Textures contained images that I felt didn't belong to that category. The category Textures is supposed to contain photographs that show a homogeneous part of an object or a scene (e.g. a landscape or a cityscape), often photographs containing some repeating pattern, and are usually not intended to be used in computer graphics. Textures (computer graphics) on the other hand are any images related to the concept of texture mapping that exists in computer graphics, and are often not photographs. I don't know if that answered your questions, but that is the reason I created the category.
Maybe the naming is not overly intuitive and needs to be changed to make it clearer what the different categories represent, even though the category Textures has a large number of subcategories and subcategories tho those categories, whose names would also need to be changed in that case. —Kri (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Currently the description for Category:Textures says "Textures are frontal taken photographs or graphics that show a homogeneous part of an object. They are necessary for 3D-Computer graphics. Many textures are merged or blended together to make a final image and then attached to a 3D object." I think it is intended for exactly what you want Category:Textures (computer graphics) to be. I agree that there a quite a few images in that category that don't belong there, but I would consider them mis-categorized and I remove them from this category when I encounter them. --Sebari (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we can move some of the images into Textures, or perhaps into Computer generated textures if they ar not photographs. I also wanted to have the category Textures (computer graphics) because some pictures are not textures themselves, but contain textures or can be used to illustrate what a texture is. Maybe it is superfluous to have a specific category for such images, though. —Kri (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sculptures of male dogs[edit]

Unnecessary category intersection: all images in this category should be moved into the two parent categories. Jarble (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Public footpaths in the United Kingdom[edit]

"Public footpath" is a legal term with precise meaning in UK; not all footpaths in the UK are public footpaths. Furthermore, public footpaths are distinct from bridleways. There is no such thing as a public footpath in Scotland (as access rights are much more permissive), when the Pennine Way crosses the border the public footpath stops. Nilfanion (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The tree as a whole should just be "footpaths" (or similar). It would be useful to retain the public footpath tree for those that are public footpaths, just as the Category:A roads in the United Kingdom tree exists for classified roads.

I think you are right, although I'm not sure what the best name would be. Category:Footpaths is just a redirect, and there are several overlapping categories: Category:Walking paths, Category:Trails, and Category:Hiking trails seem to be the most relevant. Renaming would be relatively easy (well, it's still 50 or so categories), but retaining the public footpath tree, and sorting every image by the legal status of the particular path sounds like far too much work for little benefit. --ghouston (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think "Trails" would be best, since it doesn't make any particular claim about what the path may be used for. Horse riding and cycling would often be possible. Subcategories for bridleways, public footpaths or whatever could still be created if there was a need. The existing Category:Trails in the United Kingdom could be renamed to "Long-distance trails in the United Kingdom". --ghouston (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Videos available on YouTube[edit]

Very misleading name: While the name suggests the category only contains videos that are currently available on YouTube, it also contains screenshots and videos might no longer be available on YouTube. I suggest renaming it to Category:Screenshots and videos from YouTube, similiar to Category:Videos from Vimeo.    FDMS  4    14:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this, but note that from Youtube isn't necessarily true either - they might have been uploaded here first/independently of YouTube. Richard001 (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think videos now also available on YouTube should be in this category, because potentially every free video from Commons can also be available there …    FDMS  4    11:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
This should be separated into:
--BR, user.js (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Geography of Southeastern United States[edit]

The concept is good, but the name is wrong: in English, it's never "southeastern United States". This needs to be changed to Category:Geography of the Southeastern United States. Note that I've started a similar discussion for Category:Geography of Northeastern United States. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Geography of Northeastern United States[edit]

The concept is good, but the name is wrong: in English, it's never "southeastern United States". This needs to be changed to Category:Geography of the Northeastern United States. Note that I've started a similar discussion for Category:Geography of Southeastern United States. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


The English common name is Stowbtsy or Stolbtsy. Why was the category Stoŭbcy redirected to a localised transliteration of the Belarusian name? The correct category of Stowbtsy was emptied following a speedy delete invoking 'Wrong name, see Catergory correct name'. The fact is that, per the Wikipedia article and other sources, Stowbtsy or Stolbtsy are recognised English variants, whereas Stoŭbcy is not a recognised English variant. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

And there is only one truth in the world: the english language! All the other world has to speak english and to praise! Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? I'm not certain as to how this can be construed as a rational argument for moving categories used for English Wikipedia and English Wiki Commons. Your explanation reads as a cri de coeur rather than policy-based argument. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The name of category is Stoŭbcy, because it is an official Belarusian transliteration to any Latin script language. "Stowbtsy" is an obsolete variant, when "Stolbtsy" is soviet-Russian colonial name. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
If you care to check the page you've directed me to, you'll find that it is not the MoS standard for English Wikipedia. Either the WP:WIAN - widely accepted (English variant of the) name is used, or the naming conventions (geographic names) for Belarus are used. The convention happens to be BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian.
Also note that neither "Stowbtsy" or "Stolbtsy" are 'obsolete'. Belarus has two official languages: Belarusian AND Russian. While it may be unfortunate that Russian is still the state language, Wikipedia has to reflect the reality. "Stowbtsy" is still relevant to the Jewish community, and "Stolbtsy" is still prevalent. Either way, there is no reason to transliterate in any form as widely recognised English variants take precedence over transliteration. Please check the Wikipedia article for Kiev. Note that the recognised form in the English language is used with only an allusion to the Kyiv form as the indigenous name. Note, in particular, that there is no category for 'Kyiv', only 'Kiev'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Please, give me sound proof, that "Stowbtsy" or "Stolbtsy" are widely accepted English names. But only reliable sources are acceptable. In my opinion the capital of Ukraine with total population about 3,000,000 and glorious past on the one hand and the capital of small region with less than 15,000 inhabitants and much poorer history on the other hand are too different to compare. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it's up to you to prove that isn't known under a common name in the English language before making executive category moves. The Wikipedia article title is Stowbtsy. Standard google search produced this for Stowbtsy; search for Stolbtsy yielded this; search for yielded a few truck routes. Ngram results yielded nothing for Stoŭbcy or Stowbtsy, but yielded a large number of books (I'm providing books from 1994 to 2000 exclusively in this search). In fact, "Stolbtsy" should be the English language version due to its use and recognition as the COMMONNAME in English. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
So you can't give any reliable sources and according to WP:WIAN - widely accepted (English variant of the) name there is no widely accepted English name for this place. In this case citing naming conventions (geographic names) for Belarus "other settlements are named according to national rules". And according to current national legislation (not obsolete soviet-Russian colonial rules, because there is no such country like "Byelorussian Soviet Socialistic Republic", which was in 1979) there is only one correct English name for this place and this name is Stoŭbcy. Just cite Law on geographical objects: "In Belarus, geographic names are assigned in Belarusian and by transliteration method passed into Russian" (Article 17), and "State Property Committee of Belarus ... defines the rules for transliteration of names of geographical objects in Latin alphabet" (Article 9). And according to Instruction on transliteration of geographical names of Belarus issued by State Property Committee of Belarus "Geographical names of Belarus are transliterated from the modern Belarusian spelling" (paragraph 7) according to official Belarusian transliteration to any Latin script language (Appendix). Also I can refer to official state manual issued by National Academy of Science Назвы населеных пунктаў Рэспублікі Беларусь: Мінская вобласць: Нарматыўны даведнік / Пад рэд. В.П.Лемцюговай. 2003. С. 456, which gives only Stoŭbcy. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
In addition as we can see from this (fourth, sixth and seventh links) "Stolbtsy" is not only name of Belarusian place, so any quantitative search results are non-relevant. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome to present as many cases as you wish however, if there are no common English language usages, the transliteration follows the English Wikipedia MoS, being BGN/PCGN for Belarusian. You're also ignoring the fact that there are two official languages in Belarus: Belarusian and Russian. The 'national rules' have not been adopted by the English speaking world (despite their having been posited as recommendations, not 'rules' in 2000 and updated in 2007). Furthermore, Belarusian government sites from top level to raions don't adhere to their own 'recommendations'... they're not even consistent in the nomenclature from municipality to municipality. Per the MoS,
"... the Working Group on Romanization Systems of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names, UNGEGN may be additionally included, if sufficiently different from the BGN/PCGN version."
Please note the absence of 'instead of' as a qualifier.
According to the Wikipedia MoS, the transliteration of "Стоўбцы" is "Stowbtsy" (therefore was correct as the transliteration for the Belarusian nomenclature, per the Wikipedia article for Stowbtsy), and "Столбцы" as "Stolbtsy" for the Russian transliteration.
The next step is to apply for speedy deletion of this category and invite you and Marcus Cyron to explain how any of your non-addressing of policy, outside of your I don't like it stances, could be construed to be anything other than blatantly tendentious through tag team editing and gaming the system. When I go through other moves that have been made, I wonder how many more you've managed to sneak in under the radar. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Carrying with gaming the system please don't forget about common courtesy. It's about "tag team" and other offensive accusations. I have neither the desire nor the nerves to continue the conversation in such a tone. In any case I've already given all nessesary arguments for usage of official approved and reccomended by United Nations transliteration instead of illegal and obsolete system. I repeat, that Belarusian legislation gives only secondary role for Russian in naming of geographical objects. So the officiality of Russian doesn't matter here. Also I should pay your attention that English Wikipedia MoS is just "a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process" as denoted above the page. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Iryna, I am sorry, but you do not show any reliable arguments that Stoŭbcy is Stowbtsy in English. In the new version of google maps Stoŭbcy is Stoŭbcy. Both, in Google and Bing, the quantity of search results for Stoŭbcy is only growing. To return back to Stowbtsy is to muddle the search in the future. - Frantishak (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Move to Stolbtsy. Russian is still the mothertongue of 95% of the population f Belarus, and I do not see why should we ever discuss here the romanization of Belarusian as fully irrelevant. In Russian, the romanization is unambiguous.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
It's false about mothertongue (everybody could find it out in official results of the last Belarus Census). Belarusian geographical names are Belarusian сultural heritage, not Russian. So Russian romanization doesn't concern this topic. There is no legal Russian transliteration system in Belarus. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
So what? There is one accepted in Wikipedia, it is pretty much sufficient. Saying that Belarusian geographical names are Belarusian сultural heritage is sheer nonsense.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Nothing. It means there is nothing reasonable and truthful in your comment. By the way "Saying that Belarusian geographical names are Belarusian сultural heritage" is a citation from the preamble of Law on geographical objects of Belarus. So here we are. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
We are not bound by the laws of Belarus as you should perfectly know.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
In our case legislation of Belarus is reliable source while your opinion is just you personal opinion. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
No. Go and read the policies first, then please come back.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Airtex Aviation[edit]

Can be deleted as it contained only company logo. No further images likely as company, a minor concern, was disbanded after 2010. OAlexander (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Two images: another one in the subcategory. Ankry (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cherry blossoms in California[edit]

unnecessary layer between Category:Cherry blossom festivals in California and Category:Sakura in the United States Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to add photos of cherry blossoms at Lake Balboa in Los Angeles into this category, but I haven't gotten around to it. I've already taken photos of these flowers in two separate sessions, neither of which involved a festival. I'm in the process of checking species of birds and insects that I photographed with cherry blossoms at the lake, but perhaps I can upload "flowers only" or "flowers and lake" photos first. After the Lake Balboa photos are uploaded, maybe we should consider deleting Category:Cherry blossom festivals in California‎ instead of this category if you still believe that there is an unnecessary layer. Thanks. Nandaro (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
If you intend to upload these images shortly, then i withdraw my nomination. We have a very complex problem with the various japanese/english category names for the flowers, and the festivals, with some initial discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/05/Category:Sakura. this category we are discussing here wouldnt have to be altered, though, esp. as we do tend to have "plants by state" on the commons. we also can leave "cherry blossom festivals in california", though these 2 dont have to be nested: they can be parallel, with "for images of the festival, see ___", and "for images of cherry blossoms not taken during a festival, see___" added to the category pages. after all, not all images in the festival category are of the blossoms themselves...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Mercurywoodrose, thanks for your effort in streamlining these categories. You do make valid points. I'm thinking about separating "cherry blossom" photos from "cherry blossom festival" photos for Schabarum Regional Park, but I guess we can revisit the issue after I upload Lake Balboa photos. Nandaro (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Category:Order of Brazil[edit]

  • This category and the 19 files tagged with it is an incorrect description of those files. They all seem to be part of an alternate design by Felipe Menegaz (talk · contribs) for the Wikproject Brazil page, being tested in his user space.
  • Additionally, the 10 files whose names start with "Order of Brazil" are parts of that new page design, and no longer related to their file names. They were originally images that appear relevant to those names, and uploaded by that user, but were overwritten by that user with the irrelevant ones.
  • The user has been inactive for six months. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Edifício na Avenida 5 de Outubro[edit]

Obviamente, tem de ser alterado para Category:Edifício na Avenida 5 de Outubro, 36 a 40. Mesmo que o Commons fosse só para monumentos (dica: não é), há pelo menos outro monumento que também poderia ser identificado como "Edifício na Avenida 5 de Outubro". -- Tuválkin 01:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Restaurants and pubs to Josef Švejk[edit]

The grammar used in the title is strange. Category:Josef Švejk themed restaurants or Category:The Good Soldier Švejk themed restaurants would make more sense. Themightyquill (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Jewish community of Thessaloniki[edit]

I see no rationale for this category, I suggest a merging with Category:Judaism in Thessaloniki which has the same scope and then to start working on new thematic subcategories. If youy think otherwise, I would like you to explain which type of distinguishable content each category should use. Kimdime (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Tram routes by number[edit]

This contains essentially the same stuff as Category:Trams by route number. I don't think both of them are needed, although I don't have an opinion on which one should be kept. darkweasel94 19:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, trams cannot "have" route numbers as in most cases these numbers change frequently. For this reason I support Tram routes by number, altough I do not understand why it actually contains routes and not lines as the parent category does. |FDMS 07:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed on the first account, although categorization must also reflect accidental properties of the depicted subjects — these numbers do change frequently, sure, as also weather does and yet we do have (and you don’t disagree, I’m sure), things like Category:Trams at night or Category:Trams in snow (not to mention even more transitory and not inherent characteristics, such as Category:Trams from above).
As for "routes" vs. "lines", I chose the former because the latter too often means also other, related, things, such as a special section of a fleet (irrespective of service), a company, or a brand within a company, a model as promoted by a manufacturer, etc., etc. The word "route", while less used than "line", seems to have a much more restrict semantic, the one intended, and is therefore simpler and easier to understand.
-- Tuválkin 13:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Although consensus already seems to be reached in this CFD: I appreciate the existence of in snow and at night categories, because snow and night are characteristics that can be assigned to files at first sight in most cases. However, I dislike categories such as at 02:46 (time) or – to be honest – also Number 8 on and by route number, as I cannot figure anybody visiting Commons to find a category page presenting him/her f. ex. trams with the characteristics mentioned above, which I can with in snow and at night. In other words: In my opinion, not every attribute of an image or a movie should have its own category, not even in a "perfect Commons" with an infinite number of files. |FDMS 21:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
People who want to find clocks showing a particular time will find Category:Clocks by time useful. People who want to find an image of Vienna tram number 655 will appreciate being able to use a category intersection tool on Category:Vienna tram type ULF B and Category:Trams with fleet number 655, etc. etc.; it doesn't hurt to categorize by these attributes, although nobody is forcing you either. darkweasel94 21:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Numbers 1, 15, 26, 65, 1210, 4842 on trams? |FDMS 08:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes! -- Tuválkin 09:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Clocks by time is definitely useful, on one hand because for photos of clocks time is more important than for photos of trams, on the other hand because time subcategories are necessary for the Commons clock. In my opinion by fleet number makes more sense than Number 6 on, as the numbers displayed on vehicles/trams can be kind of random and also change very frequently; as a consequence the category intersection f. ex. of Trams in Vienna and Number 6 on trams would lead to very unpredictable results, which would not be the case with Trams in Vienna and Trams with fleet number 6 (altough there might be different vehicles with the same fleet number in Vienna or any other city). |FDMS 08:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Category:Number 6 on trams (under Category:Number 6 on vehicles), as well as all the existing such categories (from 1 to 31, higher numbers lacking enough items), are split into Category:Trams with fleet number 6 and Category:Trams on route 6. There are a few rare instances where it is neither (convoy order number, etc.) — those remain in the upper category. With millions of uncategorized items, seems frivolous to complain about “excessive” detail in categorization. -- Tuválkin 09:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Number 40 on trams? FDMS  4 09:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
For me, the connection between is on line/route 40 and has a 40 on it is not obvious enough. In fact, I neither like on line/route nor with fleet number because in my eyes all items (subcategories + pages + media files) of a non-meta category should be related to each other in any way and there are better solutions than category intersections. WP:I just don't like it! However, please note that as long as nobody is forcing me to use these category structures I'm not going to complain. FDMS  4 09:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I put that one into Category:Tram line 40 (Vienna) because it is part of a series of shots taken one after the other. File:Wien DSC 3955 (2251896480).jpg shows that this is indeed a tram of line 40, and obviously that it also has a 40 on it (as per the very definition of line 40!), it just can't be seen on DSC 3964. If that were not the case I would not have put it into the category. I remember that elsewhere you spoke out against having a category for every single tram in Vienna, and I mostly agree because where such categories exist (e.g. Brno, San Francisco) that makes it actually harder to find good photos of a given type. But people who want to find a photo of a specific tram should be able to, even without Special:Search to search in the descriptions. I think the "trams with fleet number x" solution is a very good one. However, all of this seems kind of off-topic in this CfD. darkweasel94 10:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with categorising it in Tram line 40, but see problems with making Tram line 40 a subcategory (or subsubcategory) of Number 40 on vehicles. I spoke out against creating subcategories for every tram because I assumed that being able to view all media files for a specific tram is nothing we have to provide as only very few people might request such a collocation. However, if we have categories for exactly that purpose (Trams with fleet number) I think it might be better to have Trams in [city] by fleet number and create categories like Tram 4005 in Vienna (although that sounds like it's a tram that was already in service on several networks) and make them a subcategory of and only of Trams in Vienna by fleet number (not Vienna tram type E2). Having to use category intersections is neither really (new) user-friendly with FastCCI nor Special:Search and currently at Category:Trams in Vienna nothing indicates to users that categories for fleet numbers exist. Of course this has nothing to do with the category being discussed.    FDMS  4    13:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC) P. S.: I think there are better filenames than Wien DSC [numbers] …
The difference between these two categories was intended to cover a separation in categories pertaining to a specific tram route (details of the intrastructure, signage, maps and diagrams, etc.) against to its subcategory — one showing vehicles on its service. There is however not yet enough detail in categorization to make it work as intended. -- Tuválkin 13:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I do understand that you meant this to be the same thing as the difference between Category:Trams and Category:Tram transport, but we simply don't (yet?) have the rest of the category structure for that. I think meta categories should collect categories that we already have, not that we might have at some point in the future ("tram route 7" vs. "trams on route 7"). darkweasel94 13:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
That’s right. So, I don’t disagree with the proposed merging; and I agree with FDMS that it is better to keep only Category:Tram routes by number and delete Category:Trams by route number. -- Tuválkin 18:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
A very engaging and productive discussion, which makes me support the proposition to keep Category:Tram routes by number and merge Category:Trams by route number. --Nabak (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I accidentally misnamed this while trying to create Category:Oldsmobile 98 (third generation). Please delete, thanks, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 01:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Kirchweyher Bahnhof[edit]

redundant to Category:Bahnhof_Kirchweyhe Moneco (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Postmarks uncategorised by city[edit]

Reasons for discussion request --Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This category requires justification. Most postmarks are already identified by country (old and new) and by current city or commune.

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:National Anthem of Pakistan[edit]

Empty category since its files were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:National Anthem of Pakistan. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Flogging, Category:Whipping and Category:Flagellation[edit]

Not the most pleasant of topic-areas, but with Category:Flogging, Category:Whipping and Category:Flagellation we have (IMO) too many categories with too much overlap, and no clearly indicated structure, whereas for example en-wiki just has en:Flagellation which covers flagellation, whipping, flogging and lashing without distinction.

At the moment there is little way of telling where a particular image might be found, or where it should be put. Some clear structure and guidance would be useful.

(Note that some of the categories also have "in art" and "BDSM" segregations (which probably ought to be made systematic in any final structure)).

Perhaps a new category Category:Corporal punishment should be created, that would collect this and Category:Caning and Category:Spanking, but not the rest of Category:Physical punishments ? Or perhaps that would just be an unnecessary extra level, if somewhere else could be found to put the images in the paragraph above.

Some sort of clearer, more specified structure would be useful. How should this material be organised?

I guess I'm heading towards

with parallel 'in art' and 'BDSM' categories; and retire Category:Flagellation.

Does this make sense ? Jheald (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sultanate Oman caves[edit]

Wrong name. Should either be "Caves of Oman" (like the other caves-by-country categories), or at least "Sultanate of Oman caves". Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

OK--Ashashyou (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wiener Neustadt island[edit]

rename as Wiener Neustadt Island (I instead of i) Eryakaas (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Jewish ceremonial hall in Łomża[edit]

The word is Ohel (built at cemeteries): without it, the category is totally misleading since the phrase "ceremonial hall" says nothing about the graves. Please rename to Category:Jewish ceremonial Ohel in Łomża. Thanks. Poeticbent talk 20:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cities and towns of Alberni-Clayoquot[edit]

Regional district names are rarely used (except, wrongly, in Wikipedia or pages deriving their information from Wikipedia) as stand-alone region names; this one's name is a combination of two regions, the Alberni Valley and the Clayoquot Sound region. Also, regional districts do not technically include Indian Reserve lands or communities such as Hesquiat or Ahousat. And of what's here, only Port Alberni is a city, "town" is a kind of municipality in BC and should not be used to refer to IR comunities. This category should be deleted and replaced by Category:Alberni Valley and Category:Clayoquot Sound region (corresponding to like-named categories in Wikipedia) or Category:Clayoquot Sound though technically that does not include everything in teh eponymous region.--Skookum1 (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cities in British Columbia[edit]

Many of the items here are not cities, but other kinds of municipalities (Town/Village/District Municipality and a few odd ones like Resort Municipality and Mountain Municipality and Regional Municipality). Some are not even municipalities; there would see to be overlap with Category:Communities in British Columbia, which is this one's parent. This should be Category:Municipalities in British Columbia and/or culled of its non-city items and those culled should be moved to Category:Villages in British Columbia, Category:District municipalities in British Columbia and Category:Towns in British Columbia. --Skookum1 (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I have created Category:District municipalities in British Columbia for now, and moved those I am sure that belong there into it. I suppose this CfD is really maybe about whether an intermediary "Municipalities in BC" category as parent for all incorporated communities or if they're just fine in Category:Communities in British Columbia. I'll get around to the Towns and Villages categories as needed; those that were not municipal in nature are now in teh "Communities" category.Skookum1 (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I like your thoughts about how to subdividing the British Columbia communities. The images should be subdivided same way as the province does (local custom). It sounds uncontroversial to me. Royalbroil 01:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Maîtresse-vitre de la Cathédrale Saint-Étienne de Metz[edit]

Maitresse vitre turns out to be a little used term.I suggest West facade instead, (categorized under Rose windows) and will break down the parent cat into other branches. Danny lost (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I created this category, as I usually create for this sort of stained glass windows in French. But as seen the dedicated page on french Wikipedia, I agree with Danny Lost and his proposition.--Fab5669 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
So, who's gonna push the button? Danny lost (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:2012-13 Butler Bulldogs men's basketball[edit]

Should be moved to Category:2012–13 Butler Bulldogs men's basketball season. So that it is consistent with Category:2012–13 UCLA Bruins men's basketball season.--Chrishmt0423 (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC) The previous comment was misplaced, in error.

However, is not "Clamp-connections" - with the hyphen - somewhat of an anomaly in these naming conventions?


Luster terminals. Erroneous use of the English term “Luster”. Fredquint (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Manufacturer gave them name "Clampo PRO" 2 or 3 years later after appearing this wrongly named category. Dmitry G (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Luster terminals[edit]

Luster terminals, Erroneous use of the English term “Luster”. The term “Luster terminals” results from using a direct “transliteration” of part of the German term of “Lüsterklemmen“ (or “Leuchter klemme”), meaning “Chandelier terminals”, into a similar English word with the American spelling of “luster". Also, (while I do not speak German) I note that Google Translate gives “chandeliers” as an English translation of the German word “Lüster”, and vice versa. However, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives the definition of “lustre” (or luster”) as • A gentle sheen or soft glow: • (E.G. the lustre of the Milky Way.) This definition in the OED (and other dictionaries) in no way relates to the items presently being illustrated in this Category of “Luster terminals”. They would all appear to be best described, in English, as “paired screw terminals” – and most of them are “multiple paired screw terminals”. Hence, I suggest that, under the existing Category of “Electrical connection terminals”, there be created a new category of “Screw terminals”. Then, under that new Category of “Screw terminals” there be created a further new Category of “Paired screw terminals”, to which all items in the existing Category of “Luster terminals” be transferred. The existing Category of “Luster terminals” should then become a “redirection” to the new Category of “Paired screw terminals”. Fredquint (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What about renaming? --1-1111 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In Commons:Rename a category it states:- "Controversial fixes: where a category name has been in use for a long time or a lot of items, or where the naming policy is unspecific. Any category that has a corresponding Wikipedia article which has had a naming controversy over that article definitely falls into this lot."

There is no Wikipedia article entitled "Luster terminals". However, there is a Wikipedia article entitled "Screw terminal, which references several images in the Category currently called "Luster terminals"!

Since this Category was created by 1-1111 on 23 February 2010‎ (which is relatively recent) and I have now created a Category of "Screw terminals" as a sub-set of "Electrical connection terminals", I invite 1-1111 to make the renaming change to "Paired screw terminals" as a subset of "Screw terminals".

However, I note that the Category now named "Luster terminals" appears under "Electrical connection terminals" and also under "Clamp-connections" - which is, itself, a sub-set of "Electrical connection terminals"!

I suggest that, where the conductor being terminated (fixed) is contacted directly by a screw, it should come under the Category of "Screw terminals" - or the proposed sub-set of "Paired screw terminals". However, where the conductor being terminated (fixed) is contacted a plate forced upon it by a screw - or other means, it should come under the Category of "Clamp-connections" - which I note was also created by 1-1111, on 4 March 2010. (By the way,is not "Clamp-connections" - with the hyphen - somewhat of an anomaly in these naming conventions?)

Is the better name "set of overpass terminals"? Those terminals are storage of electrical continuation junction instruments, which may be called as cartridge or series. Dmitry G (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Luster terminals, Erroneous use of the English term “Luster”. The term “Luster terminals” results from using a direct “transliteration” of part of the German term of “Lüsterklemmen“ (or “Leuchter klemme”), meaning “Chandelier terminals”, into a similar English word with the American spelling of “luster". Also, (while I do not speak German) I note that Google Translate gives “chandeliers” as an English translation of the German word “Lüster”, and vice versa.
Well, my logic suggests, that root of this argumentation might be found in construction of chandeliers: manufacturers equipped boilers, alarms, doorbells and other appliances by electrical connection terminals, but manufacturer's terminals on chandeliers are missing, cause various countries have different regulations of wiring. I mean, portable electrical appliances could be connected to mains AC through standardized to large-coverage area plugs, but ceiling lighting devices are falling out of these rules due to small amperage and insignificance. However, wiring regulations in Germany and other west countries are brought to the point of absurdity, that is why terminals for chandeliers are highlighted into individual section, despite such terminals might be used to many low-power appliances. Dmitry G (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The question has been asked "Is the better name "set of overpass terminals"? Those terminals are storage of electrical continuation junction instruments, which may be called as cartridge or series. Dmitry G (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)"

My answer would be "No" - (It is completely unclear to me as to what "set of overpass terminals" means, since in English the main meaning of "overpass" is "A bridge by which a road or railroad passes over another.")

There can be no denying that the items concerned are "Terminals", since they are each designed to terminate two wires. However, they might also be termed "Connectors", since they each connect two wires. Since they come as "pairs" of screw terminals connected together to allow connection, the term "Paired screw terminals" (or even "Dual screw terminals") would seem to be appropriate.

Certainly the term "Luster" terminal is inappropriate in English, whatever the appropriateness of a similar sounding word in German may be.

(While some examples of these terminals may have "A gentle sheen", this is simply an accident of their manufacture and in no way describes their function.)

I contend that it is equally inappropriate to call them "Light fitting terminals" (Leuchteklemmen ?), since they are not restricted to use with only such equipment.

The contention

"terminals for chandeliers are highlighted into individual section, despite such terminals might be used to many low-power appliances"

is not a valid argument. It may be that in a particular jurisdiction it is a requirement that such terminals be used for the particular purpose of connecting Ceiling Light-Fittings. However, because this may be true in one area, it is certainly NOT true throughout the whole world. I cite the commentators own contribution of "WAGO 224 terminals for chandelier.JPG" as an example in this matter. (The commentator has also contributed in this category an item which he has entitled "Screw terminals for 6mm wires.JPG".)

If one examines the devices pictured in this category today (ignoring the items actually pictured in association with light-fittings or in groups of not more than three pairs, (which could be so used) one finds that 8 out of the 18 have nothing to do with a lighting fixture.

(I admit that I have included in this count two examples of multiple numbers of these pairs of terminals as manufactured which could be cut into smaller numbers of units for use in light-fittings.)

The German description of one of these pictures is "Diskreter Experimentalaufbau mit Lüsterklemmen" which is translated by Google Translate as "Discreet experimental setup with screw-type terminals". Google translate also tells me that "Paired screw terminals"/"Dual screw terminals" would be translated into German as "Gepaart Schraubklemmen"/"Dual Schraubklemmen", which in my view would be preferable to “Lüsterklemmen“.

(Previous comments are mine.)Fredquint (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the word "pair" doesn't give understandable name. "Pair" might also mean, that we are talking about connection of 2 wires, despite one cartridge contains 12 terminals and modern appliances with metal body must be connected throug 3 or more wires cause of obligatory ground wire (1st safety class). The most suitable name is cartridge of universal outboard terminals. Dmitry G (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

At least it seems that there may be some agreement that "Luster Terminal" is NOT appropriate term to use in English, whatever the appropriateness of “Lüsterklemmen“ is in German.

The term which I suggested included the word "paired" (not "pair" - see below). While, if one believes that " "pair" doesn't give (an) understandable name", the term cartridge of universal outboard terminals is virtually incomprehensible and is actually incorrect on at least three points, quite apart from the fact that it does not include the word "screw".

In the OED, the noun "Cartridge" is defined asː-

(1) A container holding a spool of photographic film, a quantity of ink, etc., designed for insertion into a mechanism. (Synonyms:- cassette, magazine, cylinder, canister, container, capsule, case, pack, packet, package)
(2) A casing containing a charge and a bullet or shot for small arms or an explosive charge for blasting. (Synonyms:- bullet, round, shell, charge, shot, casing)

The adjective "Universal is defined asː-

Relating to or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases

The adjective "Outboard" is defined asː-

(Of an electronic accessory) in a separate container from the device with which it is used

While both of the above definitions of "Cartridge" (and most of its Synonyms) state or imply that a "Cartridge" is a complete unit, to be used "as is" or, at least, as a "Plug-in" unit, the term "Cartridge" possibly could be applied to the plastic casing of one of the paired terminal assemblies (Namely, "Paired screw terminal cartridge"), even although it is a unit which must be "wired-in". However, I must disagree with the contention that "one cartridge contains 12 terminals". As a manufacturing (and sales) convenience, assemblies of these items often come in "strips" of 12 pairs of screw terminals (c. f. MFrey Screw terminal.jpg)

In use, it is quite rare that all of these terminal pairs are used together for a related purpose. Their use is mostly in groups of two or three, as illustrated in Outdoor wiring.JPG

and Lüsterklemm 050.jpg

and for which use the large multiple units need to be cut, as can be seen has been done in each of the examples given. It should be obvious that the cutting of any "Cartridge", as defined above, would ruin it and defeat its purpose as the a container of a complete unit.

The word "Universal" would indicate that these items "Relate to all things in the group of outboard terminals.". However, "Outboard" is defined as being "in a separate container from the device with which it is used" and the "outboard terminals" used in association with light-fittings are often other devicesː For example, Twist-on wire connectors,

Spring clamp connectors (such as Wago terminals type 224)

and many others.

The term "Outboard" is incorrect, as the words "modern appliances with metal body must be connected through 3 or more wires, because of the obligatory ground wire" illustrate (even if only obliquely) that many appliances contain, within their construction, groups of three (or more) of these paired screw terminals and, hence, the units concerned are not always (universally) "outboard".

To sum up the aboveː-

These items are not used "universally" - as "outboard" terminals - since other devices are often used instead,
their use is not always as "outboard" terminals - since they are often included by the manufacturer as part of a complete device,
the use of the term "cartridge" is unnecessary - and, probably, a misuse of the word and
the word "screw" is not included in the proposed term.

We are "are talking about connection of (at least) 2 wires" but not by means of one screw terminal. We are talking about the connection of at least two wires, but via a combined "pair" of "screw terminals". The confusion alluded to certainly could arise if the term "Paired wire terminals" were used. However, by using the term "Paired screw terminals" both of the adjectives "Paired" and "Screw" qualify the noun "Terminals". Even if it were written "Paired screw-terminals", the adjective "Paired" is still the qualifier of the Adjective-Noun compound of "Screw-terminals". ("Paired-screw terminals" makes it even clearer that a "pair" (or "pairs") of terminals (of the "screw" type) are referred to.)

The noun "Pair" is defined asː- A set of two things used together or regarded as a unit and the Adjective "paired" is defined asː- Occurring in pairs or as a pair. (E.G. "a characteristic arrangement of paired fins")

(I now do not consider "Dual" to be a suitable term, since it is defined asː- "Consisting of two parts, elements, or aspects". Hence "Dual" implies "separation" whereas "Paired" implies "conjunction" (joined together).)

I note that a local supplier refers to these items as "Screw Terminal Strips" ( I also note that these items are referred to as "Terminal Blocks" at

If one searches for "Terminal strip" or Terminal block" on ebay, both these items and "Barrier strips" are accessed.

Items called "Barrier terminal strips" or "Barrier strips" do not yet have a separate section in Wikimedia Commons and now appear under "Clamp-connections" - of which they are a specialized case. Hence, there is (perhaps) a case to create a separate Category (under "Clamp-connections" ?) entitled "Barrier terminal strips" (Obviously, there is no need for a "Barrier" unless two or more terminals are grouped together in a "strip".)

However, once again I question the use of the hyphen (-) in these descriptions. Fredquint (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The word "pair" could be discussed from various angles: pair means "two" of the same unit; but one wire from power cable and second wire from applience don't form pair. The same to shoe: dress shoe and boot are not pair even being in the same packaging or/and shelf. Thinking deeply from position of electrical engineering, metal core of those terminals are solid bridge with clamping screws between two wires. Dmitry G (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

However, a "pair of scissors" or a "pair of pliers" are actualy two parts working together as a unit - and one part is useless without the other.

Also, I repeat, we are NOT talking about "Wires", we are talking about "Terminals" - Paired Terminals, connected by a "solid bridge" (Actually, a solid tube.) Fredquint (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Contemporary architects[edit]

Not a useful category as "contemporary" is a relative term. More objective would be a category of living architects, but the similar Category:living people. has been redirected as unmaintainable. We already have architects by century which is more useful, objective and maintainable. ELEKHHT 03:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  • delete - as ELEKHH--Pierpao.lo (listening) 06:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • delete. Thank you for warning me, but I had not created this category as such, I had created it as simply "architects". Then somebody renamed it. Then, of course, the broad category "architects" had to be created again... I also created the category: "Architects not in the Public Domain yet", which is useful for us alone to keep track of those architects whose work we are not allowed to upload unless their work is in public display in a country where the "freeodom of panorama" clause applies. I suggest those "contemporary" architects be moved into this other category. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


another single word category which is constantly misused by auto-categorizing entities. I think this should be a disambiguation page for other "project" like categories. if turned into a redirect, the redirect target will just fill up with this dreck instead. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete: The category has no description to explain what the word "project" by itself might mean. Also, all the files in this category need to be hit with a subst: of {{chc}} as well: They seem to have groups of vague one-word category names, but aren't tagged with {{check categories}} like they should be. (I don't know why all upload bots don't add this automatically if users don't select categories manually.) --Closeapple (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, this upload bot thing sure does produce really bad categorizing. its discouraging. I am not very familiar with how it works, only the results, which are also frustrating and overwhelming.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
      • took initiative and turned it into a disambig page for various "projects", most of them not actual categories.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]


userpage and logo, both have nothing to do with a category "socialmedia" - obviously teh uploader misunderstood the category system and used it for own promo purposes Andy king50 (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Fisher Bastion (Budapest)[edit]

Although the Hungarian "Halasz" does not specify gender, the most common English translation is "Fisherman's Bastion" not "Fisher Bastion." I would suggest a move to Halaszbastya as that is the proper name of the place, or Halasz Bastion. Themightyquill (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Chris Clemons[edit]

should move to category:Chris Clemons (defensive end) to disambiguate with another Chris Clemons (category:Chris Clemons (safety) Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Official social partners of politicians[edit]

I'm a little perplexed by this category, as well as Category:Spouses of politicians. In this day and age, not all politicians are married, and not all of their partners are their husbands or wives. I think it is important that our category names reflect this fact, which was clearly the intent of this category. The reasons I iniated this discussion are as follows:

  1. Where I am from, the term "spouse" legally refers to one's partner in a marriage or a common-law spouse. It isn't limited to married couples. Is that the case elsewhere?
  2. To the extent worldwide use of the term "spouse" is mixed, is it the best word to be using for our categories? (given that it might mean different things to different people)
  3. Is "Official social partner" the right term to be using?

I just want to make sure the distinction between our categories is clear, that we maintain separate categories only to the extent necessary (i.e. we don't need two categories that both include married and non-married couples) and that we are using the best terms possible. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Spouses of politicians[edit]

Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/02/Category:Official social partners of politicians Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Old cartoons and illustrations that today would be described as racist[edit]

This category is unnecessary. The definition of racism is "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races"; this does not depend on a specific time in history. InverseHypercube 01:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This or any other definition of racist is not an argument against this category. It may be an argument against calling this, this or this drawing racist (rather than "thoughtless reproduction of racial stereotypes" or something like that). But that's what people do, and I think this use of language is prominent enough, to reflect it in our categorisation. The alternative would be that people simply throw stuff like this directly in cat:racism.
This subcat is a pragmatic approach to reflect the clear difference between racist cartoons like this and this one, and rather harmless depictions like this or even this one. We may or may not assume that the people who made the latter drawings were somehow expressing racist views, but this is useless guesswork which we can and should not do here.
My reference to time in the category name makes sense, because until the 1950s racial stereotypes were so common and thoughtlessly reproduced by pretty much everyone, that we can assume that these drawings were neither meant nor perceived as racist. When people draw stupid things like this (blah, more) in our time, we know that it is a deliberate stance against PC, and therefore not the same thing. If we have stuff like this here, it is reasonable to put it in yet another category.
I put this in Category:Described as racist, with which I also try to solve the mind numbing discussion in Category talk:Islamophobia. mate2code 17:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

InverseHypercube -- not sure about the absolute time-independence of it all. Arthur Conan Doyle once tried to write an anti-racist story, but included as an essential plot point something which is known today to be factually wrong, and whose lingering as a kind of "urban legend" as late as the 1920s was probably due to what would now be considered to be commonly-held racist presuppositions. See en:Talk:The Adventure of the Yellow Face... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Art in Greece[edit]

Suggest merging this into Category:Art of Greece, as there seems to be a lack of distinction between the two. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep For the ancient art (especially Greek and Roman, but Etruscan and Egyptian too) we have a very complex situation that requires a more accurate categorization. We cannot use the same category " ... in Greece" ( or "... from Greece " ) for objects or works of art that are still in Greece, together with others who are in the Louvre, the British Museum or in the United States. Many years ago the Italian users have created for the italian art categories this categorization system that uses "in" for objects they are still in the country, "from" for those who was created or found in that country but are now in another place (far in a museum, a town, or a country). The mother category that contains these two daughter categories is the category "of". In this last category go also categories about the artists from that country, the coins, the artistic views of that country ( " ... location in art" ), etc., namely, all artistic categories whose objects or subjects (that relate to that country) are not better localizable or can be everywhere. I understand that this categorization system is not immediately understandable to all, so I cared to explain on the top of these Greek art categories what they are intended (in, from, of). --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:The Alamodome[edit]

Category should be renamed category:Alamodome, because the stadium doesn't use "The" officially in its name. See Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Generic Venn diagrams[edit]

I'm not seeing a particular reason for this to exist that isn't already covered by Category:Venn diagrams and so I believe it should be merged upward. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm the creator of that category so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but it seems to me the distinction is quite clear and useful: generic Venn diagrams don't refer to any specific topic, but rather illustrate the general properties of Venn diagrams by using generic labels (typically letters). On the other hand, images in the root Category:Venn diagrams, you will find, are mostly specific instances of Venn diagrams applied to a given topic. Therefore, they can't be used for any purpose other than their original one.
    TL;DR: generic Venn diagrams are reusable (and those in the subcategory Blank Venn diagrams even more so); the other ones are not. --Waldir talk 05:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, then I think it ought to be renamed to "Category:Reusable Venn diagrams" or similar if that is the case, because "Generic Venn diagrams" is just as confusing as the root category to me. Also, if the images in Category:Venn diagrams refer to a specific topic, they should probably be recatted under one of the subcategories, like "Category:Venn diagrams in finance" if they refer to finance. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:History of the Philippines (1521-1898)[edit]

This category needs to be deleted. This category is a disaster! Nothing in the name, description, images, and parent categories and is consistent, providing any indication what it is really for. Moreover, the current name is a complete overlap of Category:Spanish colonial period in the Philippines‎. Delete and start over! -- P 1 9 9   17:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC) — Update: category has been emptied, all images properly re-categorized. -- P 1 9 9   18:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete. According to Commons:Categories#Creating a new category section, the first line says, "Do a thorough search, to be sure there isn't an existing category that will serve the purpose." Well, there is - the one above and Category:History of the Philippines. The reason why this category was created by User:Ramon FVelasquez because the uploader wants more categories to put his files on, both Category:History of the Philippines (1521-1898) and its sub-category Category:Manila galleon, breaking the Over-categorization rule, which for some reason, the said user is DEFIANT on following. -- Briarfallen (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully submit to the sound discretion in accordance with Commons rules, noting, sincerely--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted as per nom., duplicate of Category:Spanish colonial period in the Philippines‎. --rimshottalk 23:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Ranij ki Baori, Bundi[edit]

Move this category to Category:Raniji ki Baori, Bundi. The present spelling is wrong. For more, see en:Raniji ki Baori. Rahul Bott (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Right ! My view falls...--Daniel Villafruela (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I have created Category:Raniji ki Baori. This one with a wrong spelling can now perhaps be deleted. Rahul Bott (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Raniji ki Baori, bad name. --rimshottalk 00:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Meta categories by country[edit]

Redundant to Category:Categories by country and the actual country category (eg Category:Peru). Alan Liefting (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The names of the categories are maybe not quite clear but their purpose is different, as evident from their content. The category Category:Categories by country contains primarily by-country-metacategories grouped by item, Category:Meta categories by country contains by-country-metacategories grouped by country. None of the two categories is reduntant, but better names for them should be devised. To mix content of the two categories together would be not a solution. --ŠJů (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pont de l'île Barbe (Lyon)[edit]

Le pont de l'île Barbe n'est pas dans Lyon, mais relie Lyon à Caluire-et-Cuire. La mention « (Lyon) » dans le nom de la catégorie doit être supprimé. -- Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Diagrams of additional road signs of Japan[edit]

Should be merged upward with Category:Diagrams of road signs of Japan; the "additional" part of the title is redundant and uninformative. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Described as racist[edit]

I understand the intent of the category creator, but i dont think we have consensus to create a category with a name like this. It is a problem how to label topics with strong POV content in an NPOV way. I am trying to think about what would be best, but in the meantime this seems like a premature compromise. thus, i am opening it up for discussion. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Just think of all the time and energy that is wasted on this is racist or this is antisemitic discussions. We really need a way to reflect notable POV positions in categorisation. Until there is a better proposal this category is probably a good idea, especially because it contributes to a calm and rationale working climate.
Since years there is an edit war in Category:Islamophobia (history) over the question whether it should be in Category:Racism or not. This category could be a chance to end it. (That doesn't mean that the user who started this will ever cease, but for other users this could easily be a compromise.) mate2code 14:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
If this category can be used to finally get a handle on the behavior of semi-disingenuous people with ulterior motives like Liftarn, it will have well served its purpose by that alone... AnonMoos (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment All very good observations. I have no problem with any of them. i just wanted to make sure there was some form of consensus. if this becomes a snow keep, one can assume i have withdrawn my CFD.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice. But what's a snow keep? mate2code 20:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Complete quick consensus like a snowball rolling down a hill. Don't think it's possible to have it if only two people beside the nominator comment... AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, so i wont withdraw if its just 3, or even 4. I am still not used to the slow pace at CFD here on the commons, as the english WP resolves nearly every issue much faster. The cool set of images here makes up for the glacial pace towards snow decisions. (see what i did there?)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The whole "Categories for discussion" process on Commons is semi-broken. People who have many images in a category on their watchlist, but not the category page itself, have no way of even knowing that a discussion is even going on... AnonMoos (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. its related to the fact that we cant review the history of which images have been in a category. We also dont have wikiprojects here, which would help with listing discussions that involve subjects of great interest.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If it is described as a tree, it goes in category;Tree. If it's described as a dog, it goes in category:dog. Unless you're pedantic OR trying to bury and remove it from the proper category. This is the latest invention to take it out of it's obvious and correct category. There is simply no end to the sources AND dictionaries that support the no-brainer inclusion of category:islamophobia in category:racism, and no end to the inventive new ways of perverting the simplest of commons procedures.

But Hey, fuck it, make a new sub-category called "Category:Belongs_in_category:racism_but_we_don't_want_it_there, and pop islamophobia into THAT category, because it would be most accurate, no? Described as racism, really ? no ! you don't say ! Penyulap 07:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you had used the period of your block to engage in a little self-reflection... AnonMoos (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
"If it's described as a dog, it goes in category:dog." If there were a minority opinion among biologists, that the term dog should also cover some jackals, this would not be a matter of course. mate2code 13:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
A more fitting parallel would be if some creationists claimed that the domestic dog is not related to other forms of dogs and we then would create a category Described as dog. // Liftarn (talk)

Category:Political parties in the Russian Empire[edit]

This should probably be renamed to Category:Political parties of the Russian Empire (note the of) for consistency with other names, e.g. Category:Politics of the Russian Empire. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree --Esc2003 (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of Russian noble families - A[edit]


These should all be merged back into Category:Coats of arms of Russian noble families. This is what {{CategoryTOC}} is designed specifically to handle. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  • It's too much pictures in this category, with different names. Subcategories was created for more simple search. Please don't tuch! --Arachno T 06:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cervidae by gender[edit]

This category is too precise, so it should be automatically split into its parent categories, if possible. Jarble (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Urinating male dogs[edit]

This appears to be an instance of overcategorization, so it should be automatically split into its parent categories, if possible. Jarble (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:SVG typography[edit]

I suspect that a number of the items in this category use copyrighted font outlines. While the shapes cannot be copyrighted in the US, it seems that the points used to express the shapes can; see w:Intellectual property protection of typefaces. SamB (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Commons:Categories for discussion page reads: This page provides a centralized place to discuss the naming convention of categories (emphasis mine), which makes me wonder on how this request could possibly be appropriate here?
FWIW, I’d rather start a discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, or possibly nominate the files where the copyright violations are more or less apparent for deletion.
Ivan Shmakov (dc) 12:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Civil parishes in London[edit]

The entirety of London is unparished - making this cat redundant. no need for the subsidiary "Unparished areas" category either, as Category:London should go directly in Category:Unparished areas in England. Nilfanion (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. The first civil parish, in the City of Westminster, was created in 2013. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Solidarności Alley in Krakow[edit]

Improper translation from Polish. The English word to use is Avenue. — Please rename as Category:Solidarności Avenue in Kraków. Also, note the diacritic in the proper name of the city of Kraków. Poeticbent talk 16:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Róż Alley in Kraków[edit]

Improper translation from Polish. The English word to use is Avenue. — Please rename as Category:Róż Avenue in Kraków in lieu of a better choice. The word "Róż" is a declination of the word "Róże" meaning roses, i.e. the "Avenue of Roses" in English. Poeticbent talk 16:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends[edit]

Should be renamed to Category:Thomas & Friends, since the current 'Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends' name has not been the official name of the series since 2002. Acather96 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  • oppose per COMMONNAME and RECENTISM. These are not images solely since 2002. Nor is the Americanisation of the set of books seen as particularly relevant in the context of most of these locos. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends buses[edit]

First of all, this should be at the very least renamed to should be renamed to Category:Thomas & Friends buses, since the current 'Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends' name has not been the official name of the series since 2002. However, as there are both steam-powered and electric/diesel powered Thomas locomotive images on Commons, and I see no need to differentiate between them (in some cases, you have the same character but different methods of locomotion!). Hence the rename I think would be most appropriate is Category:Thomas & Friends (real non-rail vehicles). This would bring the category inline with enwp article naming and also broaden it's scope, which will future-proof it and make it better for users: for a show about trains, a category for trains and non-trains rather than category for trains and buses makes more sense. Thank-you. :) Acather96 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I can honestly say I have absolutely no opinion on whether Thomas & Friends is better than Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends. However I would object to using (real non-rail vehicles) as opposed to buses for this specific category, because as you can see, that would break the link with Category:Railway related buses in the United Kingdom and Category:Television programme buses in the United Kingdom, and potentially lead to non-buses being included in bus branches. I have no idea what other non-rail vehicles there are out there, but if there are any, I suggest this category be retained, and made a sub-cat of any proposed generic Thomas non-rail vehicle cat. Ultra7 (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
@Ultra7: - Wasn't aware of that, yes if this is made a subcat of Category:Thomas & Friends (real non-rail vehicles) that would seem like an excellent idea1 Acather96 (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends-related trains in Japan[edit]

Should be renamed to Category:Thomas & Friends-related trains in Japan, since the current 'Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends' name has not been the official name of the series since 2002. Thank-you. Acather96 (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends Take Along Toys[edit]

Should be renamed to Category:Thomas & Friends Take Along Toys, since the current 'Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends' name has not been the official name of the series since 2002. Thank-you Acather96 (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends (real steam locomotives)[edit]

First of all, this should be at the very least renamed to should be renamed to Category:Thomas & Friends (real steam locomotives), since the current 'Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends' name has not been the official name of the series since 2002. However, as there are both steam-powered and electric/diesel powered Thomas locomotive images on Commons, and I see no need to differentiate between them (in some cases, you have the same character but different methods of locomotion!). Hence the rename I think would be most appropriate is Category:Thomas & Friends (real locomotives). Thank-you. :) --Acather96 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Better still create the (real locomotives) category and make the (real steam locomotives) category a subcat of the first. I would expect the phrase "real steam locomotives" to mean that the category contains actual steam locomotives Oxyman (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Elizabeth River[edit]

There are multiple Elizabeth Rivers. There is no justification to give the US Elizabeth River pride of place. All Elizabeth River categories require disambiguation. I came across a couple of image taken on the Elizabeth River, Virginia. I am not going to presume that is the one with pride of place. I had to check. So would everyone. Therefore all require disambiguation. Geo Swan (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Thun train station[edit]

Category already exists as Category:Train station of Thun (which is quite unpractical indeed); category should also be deleted (or replace Category:Train station of Thun). NAC (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Tiendas of San Pedro Atocpan[edit]

renamed and moved content to Shops in San Pedro Actopan Thelmadatter (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Italian Air Force Wings[edit]

From what I can tell, most of the badges and patches in this category are made for Italian armed forces by the Italian government. However, in the past, there was a discussion regarding PD in Italy and also with government works. It has been determined a few times now that Italian government works are not PD, so the Italian government PD template was deleted. Almost all the patches here are listed as PD by the uploader, without any mention as to who actually owns the copyright on the images or where they came from. I am no expert, but it seems to me that at the very least, they're missing crucial copyright information. However, I'm guessing that they are all under copyright and considered fair use, which would not be allowable here. I would appreciate more people weighing in on this. Thanks, The Haz talk 22:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Category:Hera Barberini[edit]

Rename to Category:Hera Barberini statues, to distinguish the type from the archetype (See w:en:Barberini Hera). Danny lost (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we have files for both? --rimshottalk 19:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


This is, i believe, Italian for a "plaster casting collection", see italian WP, translated by google: The collection of plaster casts is the place where they are kept in plaster reproductions (typo in ancient greek means "chalk") of statues in bronze, marble and terracotta. It is sometimes also referred to as calcoteca, from the Greek root of the word Chalkos, or "bronze", to indicate the material of the works reproduced. The largest collection of plaster casts existing in Italy is the Museum of Classical Art, University "La Sapienza" of Rome. The gallery of plaster casts of Canova Possagno instead retains original plaster casts of works by Antonio Canova. Another permanent collection of plaster casts of the preparatory sketches of the works of the sculptor Michele Tripisciano is present in Caltanissetta in the Palazzo Moncada. RENAME Category:Plaster castings collections or similar. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


This hand gesture has two meanings -- "V for victory", or "Peace". I suggest this category should have two sub-categories, one for each meaning. For many of these images we can tell the meaning from the context Images where the meaning remains unclear should remain in this, the parent category.

I read that "palm-out" means "Peace" and "palm-in" means Victory. But the images we have contradict that. Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I'm not sure it would be that easy to assume the purpose in most cases. And there is actually a third meaning: Palm-in, knuckles-out (Category:Reverse V sign) has traditionally been about as rude as the middle finger in several countries. (See, for example, [7].) When Winston Churchill started using a hand sign to support the "V for Victory" movement, he supposedly switched palm direction after someone explained to him how other social classes viewed the direction the knuckles were pointing. (See V sign#The V for Victory campaign and the victory-freedom sign.) If there was a "V-sign by purpose" split, this would have to be considered, particularly since some non-Commonwealth people tend to make the peace sign in both directions, but (I assume) a Brit or Aussie wouldn't do this without intending a double meaning. Someone British or maybe Australian users can probably explain this further. --Closeapple (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Disagree with the proposed category split. It is often unclear what is meant, and we can't and shouldn't assume a meaning. Also, the distinction between palm-in and palm-out is not universal. --P 1 9 9   14:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I haven't seen a proposed category split only a pretty good suggestion for two (or more?) subcategories. The peace sign has never been called the V-sign, except by people who don't know what they are talking about. I have never used the V-sign. The peace sign - always palm toward viewer - has however been a considerable part of my life since 1968. What's urgently missing here, if this is to remain without said subcategories, is an introductory text. Now, there is no reference at all to the peace sign. To complicate matters there is another type of peace sign, often worn as jewelry on a necklace.


  1. Write a brief category introduction immediately which includes the various uses of a V-sign.
  2. Make a main Category:Symbols of peace
  3. Make two subcategories: a. Hand signals for peace (Peace sign) and b. Images for peace
  4. Under a. make subcategory V-sign (peace) with palm out
  5. Under b. make subcategories such as Peace jewelry, Peace symbols in other art
  6. Sort all the pertinant images under these categories
  7. Name change the current category - with the images that are left - to V-sign (victory) with palm in and place a referral at the top also see Category:V-sign (peace) with palm out

--SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Suggesting that we split it into V-sign (palm in) and V-sign (palm out) with possible subcats for each separate meaning. V-signs are considered vulgar in parts of the world. --Pitke (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Driving cabs of watercraft[edit]

Boats have cockpits, not driving cabs. This is a whole pile of Just Plain Wrong renames today by user:ŠJů with repeated edit warring to back it up.

See Category talk:Train cockpits for the presumed origin of this mess. Note that boats aren't trains and that there is no reason (other than regular Commons stupidity) to rename one to use the same name as the other. They are different, different terms are applied. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion moved from User talk:ŠJů#Edit warring over Category:Boat cockpits

Please stop. First of all it's BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss - not Bold, Revert, Edit war over it.

Secondly, boats don't have driving cabs, they have cockpits. Locomotives have driving cabs and not cockpits (as it took an incredible amount of time to get straight). Now here's the surprising part: boats and locomotives are different. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we should discuss instead of headlong reverting and breaking of categorization structure. Cockpits are a type of driving cabs, aren't they? Driving cab is more universal term than cockpits (all cockpits are driving cabs but not all driving cabs are cockpits, thus the universal name should be preferred in the parent categories. I'm not sure all types of boats have really "cockpits" but all boats have any driving stand, either a cockpit or another one. --ŠJů (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
So anything that is a sub-type of <foo> must also have a name based on <foo>? Nonsense. Also will you please stop edit-warring over this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Not, they must not. The question whether all types of boats have really "cockpits" is open to a discuss. --ŠJů (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

End of moved discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If a boat has a cockpit that we have photographed, then it is appropriate to categorize it as a cockpit. If it has a bridge instead, then call it a bridge. What is inappropriate is for it to have either a cockpit, bridge or a poop deck and to call this a "driving cab" instead, because diesel locomotives have driving cabs. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Try to answer questions asked in the discussion. You may be right that the driving cabs of boats are mostly named "cockpits". The question is whether ALL driving stands of boats are cockpits. If yes, we can have one category of boats cockpits. If not, we should resolve whether we will have a category of boat driving stands and its subcategory of boat cockpits or only the most universal category for both of them. The next question is whether driving cabs and driving stands of other watercraft (including big ships) can be called "cockpits". The fact the diesel locomotives have driving cabs doesn't implies that buses, excavators or ships haven't driving cabs. --ŠJů (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
So your logic is that not all boats have cockpits, therefore no boats may be categorized as having cockpits?
Not all boats have masts or propellers either. Are you asking that we delete those too? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Try to read and answer the discussion questions and arguments above if you want to contribute to the discussion. Your last questions were answered just in my previous contrubittion already: "The question is whether ALL driving stands of boats are cockpits. If yes, we can have one category of boats cockpits. If not, we should resolve whether we will have a category of boat driving stands and its subcategory of boat cockpits or only the most universal category for both of them." Did you not understand, or you forgot to answer? "My logic" is that the "Cockpits" category tree contained mixed content and the word "cocpits" was misused generally as a term for all driver's stands. Most of the subcategories contained no real "cockpits". The subcategories which contain cocpits only should be named "... cockpits", no doubt about it. However, the subcategories which contain various types of driving stands mixed should use more general name to express the whole scope of the category. If you would like to have more specialized subcategories, you can bring your distinguish criteria and classify and separate the content. Set to this work if you want! Anyway, the more general categories are more needfull than the more specialized ones. --ŠJů (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It is not our role to introduce neologisms -- solely because they make sense to some of us personally. I agree with those respondents above who have challenged whether there has ever been a single nautical expert who ever used the term "Driving cabs of watercraft", or "Driving cabs of sailboats", "Driving cabs of motorboats".
In some discussions I have argued for using a less frequently used term, because the more frequently used term was ambiguous. But the proper order should be DCA -- Discussion, Consensus, then Action -- not the Bold, Revert, Discuss some have claimed we should use here.
We already have the perfectly acceptable Category:Bridges (nautical), which has the great advantage that it is consistent with the usage of actual nautical experts.
Note: Many, perhaps most of the images that User:ŠJů took out of existing categories to shoehorn into one of his or her new "driving cabs" categories were OPEN cockpits -- they weren't enclosed cabs at all. Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:ŠJů#Could you please explain.... --ŠJů (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Rather than trying to defend taking the elements from existing categories, and placing them in your new categories, could you instead address the concerns other respondents have voiced over the categorization you advocate?

Specifically, no nautical expert uses the term "driving cab" for any kind of watercraft. I accept, at face value, the term is used for buses and trains, but it is not used, by experts, for watercraft.

I acknowledge there are times when we should consider using terms not used by experts -- but those are all instances were experts in various nations use different terms. The engine that lifts or lowers vessels floating in caissons of water are called "boat lifts" in the UK, "ship lifts" in some other nations, and are called "lift locks" in Canada. I personally think the WMF projects should use the term "lift lock", even though no one uses the term outside of Canada, because both "boat lift" and "ship lift" are ambiguous, and can refer to a crane that lifts a vessel out of the water, for maintenance or winter storage.

You have introduced a non-standard term -- one used no-where in the real world, and, near as I can tell, you have offered zero meaningful justification for using this non-standard term.

No, that other contributors incorrectly referred to trains and buses having "cockpits" is not a meaningful justification to rename watercraft's cockpits "driving cabs" -- particularly since most watercraft's cockpits are open, not enclosed. Geo Swan (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Everybody can participate in the discussion and everybody can invite other user to the discussion. Please, don't shatter and duplicate the discussion and discuss at appropriate disussion pages, not at my personal user page. My arguments and questions answer in the discussions where they were asked. I'm waiting for your constructive proposals and arguments there. Thank you. --ŠJů (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

End of moved contribution.

It is really not our role to "introduce neologisms". Thats why we should prefer descriptive names in common words if the special terms are not compatible and universal enough. Wikimedia Commons should be structured primarily not by specificity and anomalies and of English terminology but primarily by essence of the content. That's why I'm awaiting your constructive participation in the discussion.
Thank you for the link Category:Bridges (nautical). This is a good example of a category which is maybe correctly named but was quite deficiently categorized. The category had no appropriate relations to essentialy and functionally analogous devices/places of other watercraft and vehicles, even with bridges of non-maritime ships! Thats also a cause why some categories of captain's bridges were also lost in the categorization tree and not categorized under this category. It was really a good example of bad categorization and we should reflects its causes. Thank you for finding of this lost and almost orphan category. Let you reflect the distinction between systematical structural categorization and pure tagging.
Btw., the adjective dissambiguation in brackets is not just the preferred form – wouldn't be "Nautical bridges" better name, as well as their examples as "navigation bridges" or "admiral's bridges" or "compass platforms" use the adjective normally? Consider also whether the category name is specific enough (towards boarding bridges, observation bridges for passengers etc.) As regards appropriateness of the name "Bridges (nautical)", the English article about it is poorly referenced and verified and contains no link to any source which uses the term "Bridge (nautical)" or compares the term with related terms.
As regards your objections, I can share most of them with you and we should search for their solution together. However, the situation that category of "cockpits" contained all images of driving stands (even though most of them are not really "cockpits" and many of them are not even "cabs"). We should accept the need for such a category but search for any more appropriate name for it and check and thínk out naming and structure of its subcategories and sort the content.
As you mentioned, the stand/post of the person driving any vehicle (generally) can be in a cab or cabin (the distinction and use of the words and their equivalents can vary by language and by type of vehicle). The cab or cabin can be designated exclusively for the driving person or shared with other persons or purposes (even a driving cab of railway motorcar can be shared with a conductor but it is still a driving cab). You are right that boat or truck cab are mostly called simply "a cab", as far as such vehicle have not more different cabs. However such cabs fall under driving cabs even though this purpose is not emphasized usually. However, you are right that many stands of driving persons are neither cockpits nor cabs and we should search for more appropriate name for all driving stands.
Unfortunately, you focused primarily to negation of the words "driving cab" instead to constructive classification of driving stands and precision of the distinguishing criteria. You even didn't comment which of the 4 examples depicts cockpits, in your view. I could similarly give examples of boat driving stands which are probably not "cockpits". If you want to be helpful, propose a name of the root category for all types of driving stands of all types of watercraft, select images from "cockpits" categories which don't depict cockpits, add a clear category description what should be consider as cockpits and waht shouldn't, classify the images and subcategories and create appropriate sister and parent categories to the "cockpits" categories. If the content is not classified by type of driving stands, the names of the categories should be correspondingly general. --ŠJů (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Before you bring some more systematic classification with clear criteria and definitions, try to discuss and classify these examples:

I say nothing about it, I'm awaiting your opinions. If you both will assert "that all are cockpits", I have no problem to accept it. However I peronally have problem to distunguish "cockpits", "bridges" and possibly something else and I await your knowledge and help. --ŠJů (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No reaction yet? --ŠJů (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No answer here? No objection, no opinion, no propsal? --ŠJů (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverting premature category emptying[edit]

User:ŠJů moved elements from Category:Cockpits (sailing) to the new Category:Driving cabs of watercraft. This has the very unfortunate, and IMO disruptive effect of leaving the earlier category empty. Since empty categories are routinely deleted this is absolutely the wrong order.

Sorry User:ŠJů, but if you thought those images really belonged in a category called "Driving cabs of watercraft" then you should have left the images where they were, and initiated a discussion here where you made the case for the new category replacing the earlier category. If and only if your proposal gained a consensus here should the elements have been moved.

Categories suck as an organizing tool. There is no easy way to see which elements a category has held in the past. There is no easy way to see why elements were added, or why they were removed. Until the exisiting category feature is superceded by a superior organizing feature it falls to all of us to be polite, cooperative, and disciplined about how we use categories, and, no offense, this absolutely precludes what some feel is a disrespectful hijacking of the existing elements of earlier categories, making those earlier categories vulnerable to deletion because they have become empty... Geo Swan (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

When I moved any content to another category, I always treated properly with the previous category (as well as in this case). Nothing from the category content disappeared. However, as I can see, Geo Swan is who emptied some category and caused such "disruptive effect of leaving the earlier category empty", without any link to the new category. Such a method is really imperfect and premature.
The previous situation was that all categories of driving cabs and driver's stands of all types of vehicles (including trains, trams, buses, funiculars etc.) was called "cocpits". Even though some of vehicles (small airplanes, racing automobiles or small boats) have really cocpits, the term was really discussed and criticized as inappropriate as a general term for all types of vehicles. And, even though languages and branches use various special names for special types of driving stands, there is no reason to shatter the categorization structure and to suppose that cockpits have nothing to do with other types of driver's cabs and stands.
The discussion is in motion and you are invited to participate in it, if you didn't noticed the previous discussions and didn't contributed to them and if you want to react to the questions and arguments from the discussions. If you will have any constructive proposals how to distinguish different types of driving stands of watercraft reliably and how to name the root category for all such special categories, your proposals are welcomed.
For a start of your participation in the discussion, try to express your opinion toward the questions and problems mentioned above. Unfortunately, I cannot found your opinion to them. Half-baked reverts ar not sufficient for any solution. --ŠJů (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Why did you start edit-warring to revert me, even after I asked you to stop, when I started correcting these undiscussed and incorrect changes? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Andy Dingley If your edits (even thought reverts) would be perfect, without disruption of categorization structure, I need not to correct them. However, your reverted categories fell out of the categorization structure, categories emptied by you were not treated by any appropriate link or template etc. Btw., you have permanently the opportunity to join the constructive discussions and I´m awaiting your opinions and answers. --ŠJů (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • User:ŠJů, I accept at face value that you simply don't understand why your emptying of Category:Cockpits (sailing) was premature, and a problem. I accept at face value that you don't understand why my reversion of your unilateral emptying of that category, and restoring the status quo ante, was not disruptive.
You offered me a link, above, as some kind of example. But it means nothing to me. Let me, in turn, offer you an example, from my contributions. In December 2012 I initiated a discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/12/Category:Gun turrets. I thought my proposed re-organization made sense. But I waited and gave other contributors a chance to weigh in. Only after other contributors had had a chance to voice their opinions did I carry out that re-organization. And I feel very strongly that this is the approach you should have followed. Geo Swan (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Geo Swan, your objection was that somebody left emptied categories without appropriate treatment. I answered that not I but Geo Swan (and Andy Dingley also) were who left some emptied categories without any link and without any explanation why the categories were emptied and where their content was moved. Thats simply a clear neglect and fault, independently on the fact which variant of categorization structure or naming you (or I) preffer. Just this fault (as well as disruption of categorization strucutre) can be a cause of troubles you described. A finished renaming/moving of any category cannot cause such troubles, even if the new name is not preferred by you (or by me). However, I'm not sure you understand it already. --ŠJů (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, if you're so insistent on presenting a pejorative version of other editors' actions:
I did not empty any categories. I did not create any empty categories. I re-enabled some valid and recently-emptied categories by removing their redirection tags and restoring their correct categories. I also redirected the freshly created and incorrectly-named categories to point back to the correct locations. I had to do this repeatedly as you kept reverting me, even after I'd asked you to stop and after I'd opened this CfD.
These correct categories were then empty. However there were also category redirects pointing to them, so that 'bots would repopulate them. This was the appropriate way to repair the recent mis-categorisations. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
If you (or I) make any halfway edit, it its worse than to use inappropriate name only (even if both names are inappropriate, the previous as well as the new). Well, let's focus rather to the open guestions and constructive proposals and solutions. --ŠJů (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:Aircraft cockpits[edit]

It's not a good idea to rename Category:Aircraft cockpits to Category:Driving cabs of aircraft either. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, thank you for the link. If you have really systematic concern in the problem of "cockpitmania", join the whole discussion and answer the systematic questions. Some levels and branches are solved already, some are avating for proposals and discussions. For example, to work on Automobile cockpits and Truck cockpits is desirable now. I would pleased to believe that you ideas are better but it seems to be very difficult to prompt you to some constructive anwers or proposals. --ŠJů (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuing edit warring by ŠJů[edit]

Why have you now created yet another undiscussed category with an invented name? Category:Driving stands of watercraft Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned and thoroughly discussed above in the discussion, driving stands of watercraft can be distinguished to at least two types: cockpits and bridges. Unfortunately, none of the unconstructive revertators proposed objective distinguishing criteria or more precise classification and terminology, but the discussion implied unequivocally that "driving cabs" is not a correct term covering all types of driving stands. To comply with the justified objections from the discussion can be hardly considered as "continuing edit warring". Do you want to propose any better solution? I'm awaiting it always. If you did so already, I didn't notice it, I'm sorry. --ŠJů (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, you attacked also the renamed category even though the renaming was a obliging response to the objections from the discussion. What are your real objection now? Do you mean, "driving" is not appropriate for navigation and do would preffer "control" as the adjective specifying places from where watercraft is controlled? Or you would like even fight against the idea that control stands of vehicles can have an united and structured category tree? Or even you want to defend the previous status independently on the context, all arguments, problems, questions, incorrectness etc. and to impede whatever solution and improvement? --ŠJů (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
By "response" to the discussion, I think you mean, "My first invented name was rejected by others, so I'm going to invent another one, equally novel and groundless in origin". Will you please stop doing this, and will you please stop continuing to do this during the discussion, especially not by spreading it further and further into aircraft and goodness knows where else. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree with Andy that the invention and use of yet another neologism is very premature.
Even if, for the sake of argument, you convinced other contributors here that we should use a neologism, in place of the long established English terms, others might conclude that a DIFFERENT neologism should be used, like Category:Driving consoles of watercraft, or Category:Navigation consoles of watercraft. Using your new neologism, before a conclusion has been reached here, is premature.
If you really think a neologism is appropriate, then I urge you to concentrate on making a convincing case for such. Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Geo Swan, I´m very pleased that you come with some constructive proposal at last, though with many useless talks and in inappropriate section of the discussion. Andy Dingley said nothing to the core of the problem, thus I suppose that he has no objections to the your proposal and it can be immediately applied. The remained second problem above awaits your work still. --ŠJů (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit war, captain's cabins and sea captains[edit]

I have some doubts regarding Geo Swans edit war about Category:Captain's cabins on United States Navy ships.

I supposed that Captain's cabins is an approximate synonyme or analogy of the more known term "Captain's bridge", i.e. that it is a post from that the captain works and manages the ship, not only his accommodation room. That's why I supposed that it is a type of driving posts on the ships. I do appologize if I was mistaken. Anyway, the creator of Category:Captain's cabins on United States Navy ships omitted to create or find appropriate parent category of "captain's cabins" and this problem needs to be solved.

However, what I'm not able to understand, why Geo Swan removed this obviously insufficiently categorized category also from the category Sea captain. Do you assert that captain's cabin have nothing to do with the captain? Or it is only your mistake from your ardour and carelessness? Or even this is a symptom of your specific way of understanding of categories generally? Are you able admit any relation between captains and their cabins? --ŠJů (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I dispute I was edit warring:
  1. User:ŠJů, as discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:Sea captain, your subject field knowledge of maritime matters falls short of that required to make changes without consulting other contributors first.
  2. There is the principle of Status quo ante -- when there is a disagreement the simplest path is to leave the article, category, whatever, in the state it was in before the agreement, and only change it once the disagreement is resolved and only if the conclusion is that a change is in order.
Yes, Captains and Captain's cabins are related. Generally, workmen, and their tools, are related. For many fields of endeavour we capture that relationship by placing both the workmen, in the case of Astronauts and Cosmonauts, and their tools, in their case space-suits and space-capsules, we had placed them in the same parent categories, in their case space exploration.
We have no consensus that the category for workmen should be the parent category for their traditional tools. For most fields of endeavour we have placed both workmen and tools in the parent cat for the field. Nothing prevents you from trying to make the case for your preferred structure. But please don't act as if you already had a consensus lined up for your personal preference. Geo Swan (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Subjects which are specifically related to one specific function or profession should be categorized under the category of the function or profession. Especially when they are even named after it. We categorize by item here and the categorization is modular, not only a simple hyponymic hierarchy as you assume. However, the content of the category should be structured into suitable subcategories to be not mixed. Also a special sort key for rare or specific types of subcategories is used when there is a need to keep order. Deficient, incomplete and unlinked categorization is clearly not a better way. General principles of categorization are given already, we need not to waste our time with inventing of invented and established principles.
Btw: the factual section above is without your reaction for 3 days still (while you wrote many useless talks elsewhere). While your justified factual objections were accepted immediately, you seems to ignore unresolved questions and to be not willing to participate in the discussion seriously. Pure negativism and factual passivity is not the preferred principle of collaboration on Commons. If you are unwilling to help with the work, you cann't block all others wilfully. You introduced really a mess to the discussion, spreading it to many various places and disrupting its structure. Should I help you to find and resume to you the unresolved problems and unanswered factual questions from the discussion, unless you are able to make it oneself? What is "Status quo ante" in your view? To rename Rolling stock driving cabs back to Train cockpits and its parent category to Cockpits? You have achieved clearly not a consensus on such solution. We need look for the best solution, not to shove our heads into sand as proverbial ostrichs. We need to define and classify various types of driving stands, we need to distinguish essential distinctions from accidental language distinctions, wee need consider the best names for all levels of affected categories, we need to decide how detailed will be the categorization structure at affected levels etc. You got stuck in one particular problem (which was resolved already) and seem to be not able to advance. --ŠJů (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries[edit]

Please do not use misleading edit summaries: [8] Particularly not when they are used in this disparaging manner to imply that you are correcting their mistake, when in fact they had just corrected yours – an error so obvious that you had even left it in place yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing "disparaging" on the fact that I corrected your an obvious mistake and i see nothing missleading on the fact that my revert is labelled as a revert. If you are convinced that captain's cabins at maritime ships have nothing to do with sea captains, you should explain such unexpected assertion. --ŠJů (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Firstly this wasn't my edit
Secondly it's not about captains, it's about your categorisation of captain's cabins as Driving cabs.
Your edits in all this have been inaccurate and inept. Your comments in relation to others since are far from truthful. It's getting increasingly difficult to assume good faith in such conditions. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you please participate in real constructive discussion instead of looking for nonsensical and irrelevant pretexts to attack me? --ŠJů (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

General discussion[edit]

Please notice the general discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:Driving cabs of vehicles. --ŠJů (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Belvedere (Vatican)[edit]

Delete or rename. Category:Cortile del Belvedere is no the other side of the left building. Category:Belvedere Palcae, is a possible name for that building, but it isn't clear how to distinguish it from Category:Apostolic Palace. On the right we have the Vatican Gardens. Danny lost (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this category is supposed to represent, apart from Cortile del Belvedere‎. It's a grouping of several courtyards within the Apostolic Palace? I'm inclined to redirect it to Category:Cortile del Belvedere‎. --ghouston (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sea captain[edit]

Do we have overlapping, redundant categories? Do we really need Category:Ship captains and Category:Sea captain and Captain (nautical)? This category lacks any expository text that could serve to guide contributors as to what it should and shouldn't contain. One might conclude it was appropriate to apply this category to ever individual who had ever commanded a maritime vessel. Well, that would mean this category would contain tens of thousands of images, or more.

A no doubt well-meaning contributor keeps trying add Category:Captain's cabins on United States Navy ships. Is that really helpful?

Should this be used for captains of canal boats, lake freighters, river barges and city fireboats -- fresh-water vessels? Because, for this, Category:Ship captains would be a better choice. Geo Swan (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am going to suggest this category should redirect to Category:Ship captains, and that it should only contain images of captains, while onboard vessels they command. We could include images of former captains; we could include images of former captains, but only while wearing their captain's uniforms -- but I think this would be a mistake. In the US Navy, for instance, an officer might wait a dozen years or more for command of a vessel, and then might only command it for a year, or so. Is it really useful to place images of them in a categories devoted to ship commanders, after or before their brief period of command?

    In the USN, again, some distinguished officers rise to the rank of Captain, while never commanding a vessel. In most navies, the small and medium sized vessels are commanded by Commanders or Lieutenant Commanders. So, I suggest we restrict Category:Ship captains to images of vessel commanders while actually aboard their vessels. Geo Swan (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am going to suggest we should include the commanders of vessels that are not always called ships, like submarines, canal barges, and fireboats. I am going to suggest we should include the commanders of vessels, without regard to their substantive rank. Henry Larsen, the Canadian explorer, was an RCMP Sergeant when he commanded the St Roch in its transits of the Northwest Passage. Geo Swan (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. Captain (nautical) is a gallery, not a category. If the category gallery was improperly categorized, the fault should be immediately and simply fixed, no need to open discussion about it.
  2. Category:Ship captains is a logical parent category of the older category Category:Sea captain. The category Category:Sea captain should be renamed to plural, it's self-evident. The question whether the category Category:Ship captains should have a special subcategory of sea captains is not so important. I personally think that maritime navigation have its significant specificity and is also legislatively distinguishable, though some vessels and captains can operate in both domains. If such special category would not exist now, we really need not to be in hurry to create them. However, i found not so weighty reasons to remove (dissolve, merge) such a long-established category.
  3. I have also no objections if the proposer will to create a more general parent category for all commanders of vessels, though I think, for small boats with one-man crew such a category would be not very useful. However, if Geo Swan is aware of such images which need be moved to the category, it should be created certainly.
  4. The category Category:Captain's cabins on United States Navy ships should be categorized under Category:Captain's cabins and Category:Captain's cabins under Category:Ship captains, there is no question to be asked. However, we can consider whether United States Navy ships are only maritime ships (and their captains only sea captains) or whether United States Navy have also some river ships or sea ships.
  5. The category Category:Ship captains should contain all content related to the item of ship captains. Not only portrets of the captains but also captain's uniforms, captain's documents, captain's cabins etc. Naturally, they can be sorted into appropriate subcategories, according to standard categorization conventions. Generally, we should follow standard categorization conventions and not to devise some unreasoned anomalies only for this category. Let's apply principles used for other comparable proffesions. If the person is known as a captain, his category should be categorized under Ship captains. If the person is only a disposable captain, only the content related to this function should be categorized under Ship captains. --ŠJů (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I nummbered your paragraphs, to make them easier to respond to:
    1. I think your 2nd sentence exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are doing here. Our categorization is not a reflection of one perfect god-given hierarchy. We have human-built hierarchies, that rely on conventions -- agreement. Discussion is required regularly. Skipping those discussions is disruptive. For any field of study, like, for instance, the classification of insect species, based on comparing their differing body parts, there are multiple possible classification schemes. Over the last couple of centuries the biologists who classify insects have agreed on the broad details their classification schemes. However, first, if you look in the right scientific journals you will see biologists are still debating the specific details of their classification. Second, if you go back early enough, in the classification of species, or in other fields of study, there were other organizational schemes, other conventions, that could have been used. Consider calculus. In the Anglosphere Newtown is often recognized as the inventor of calculus, and Liebniz is forgotten. Yet we use Liebniz's notation scheme, not Newton's. For centuries almost the entire world has represented numbers in base ten. But the ancient Mayans and the ancient Sumerians also used base sixty -- it is a legacy of their astrologers that we have sixty seconds to a minute and sixty minutes to an hour.

      So I dispute your notion that "If the category was improperly categorized, the fault should be immediately and simply fixed, no need to open discussion about it."

      Here on the commons we do not, in fact, have One True Classification Scheme -- we have multiple incompatible classification schemes. The extent of the incompatibility isn't always obvious because so much classification remains to be done.

      Classifying using the existing category feature sucks. The category feature is deeply inadqeuate as a mechanism for collaborators to agree on how to classify intellectual content, and the sooner if is replaced with a mechanism with greater memory, better facility for documentation, the better.

    2. When you write that one of those categories is the logical parent category of the other it seems to me you are making the mistake of implying your interpretation is "obvious" -- well I wrote a wiki-essay where I explain why nothing is obvious.

      I will repeat that you seem to be overlooking that there are deeply experienced captains who never served at sea. There are 150 lake freighters that travel the North American Great Lakes. There have been thousands or tens of thousands of deeply experienced captains of these vessels who never served "at sea", because all their experience as an officer, had been on fresh water. Similarly, in Europe, you will find deeply experienced captains whose only experience has been on Europe's rivers and canals.

      I am left guessing as to what you mean by "I personally think that maritime navigation have its significant specificity and is also legislatively distinguishable, though some vessels and captains can operate in both domains." I suspect this is an instance where being an ESL person is what is causing the confusion. I believe that, in English, "maritime navigation" is a term that applies to navigation at sea, navigation on canals, and navigation on natural rivers and lakes -- but I wonder if you might think the term distinguishes between navigation at sea and navigation elsewhere.

    3. I too doubt that when a vessel is operated by a single crew member he or she is referred to as a captain. However, I will yield to a genuine nautical expert on this point. As for your request for a "more general parent category for all commanders of vessels" -- wait a second, shouldn't you explain what is wrong with Category:Ship captains first?
    4. Please look at Category:Space suits and Category:Space suits of the United States. Your insistence that "Category:Captain's cabins on United States Navy ships should be categorized under Category:Captain's cabins and Category:Captain's cabins under Category:Ship captains" makes as much sense as it would to insist that Space suits should be elements of Category:Astronauts. Astronaut is an occupation. A space suit is something used in the space program. Ship captain is an occupation and a cabin is something a mariner uses. You still haven't established why captain's cabin should be an element of Ship captains. Please don't simply claim it is "obvious".
    5. You assert Category:Ship captains should be the parent category for "all content related to ... ship captains [including] ... captain's uniforms, captain's documents, captain's cabins etc." It is something you seem ready to insist upon as if it were "obvious". But we have already categorized Category:Military rank insignia by country. What possible value do you see in your preferred structure?

      ESL time -- I don't know what you mean by "disposble captain". Geo Swan (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  • 1. The principle that a gallery should be categorized in the category of identic item is clear and established enough. No need to blather around it. The simple fault is fixed now. Maybe, you was confused that I used one wrong word in my answer, nevertheless the distinction between galleries and categories can be understandable for you. I believe, I need not to explain to you what gallery pages at Commons are.
  • 2. You are right, I didn't anticipate that English applies the term "maritime navigation" also to inland navigation. It sounds very comically to an inhabitant of inland country to call river transport "maritime" but my language have also some illogicalities and oddities (diesel ships are called "parník" = steamship colloquially etc.). Do you deduce from it that all captains of river ships are "sea captains" also? I would like to believe you but some reliable sources supporting your opinion would be required. As soon as you give evidence of such claim, we can merge both categories according to your proposal immadiately. Opinion of some other native speakers at least from GB and US would be also useful before the action.
  • 3. I said nothing against Category:Ship captains. You was who proposed an other and still more general category, and I expressed my agreement/support with the condition that a real need for such category exists here.
  • 4., 5.: Thank you for the notice. The faults are fixed now. It's maybe surprising for you but hyponymy is not the sole type of categorization relation used here. Commons is categorized by topic.
  • When you don't understand a word used by ESL, look the context and consult a dictionary. You talked about "an officer which wait a dozen years or more for command of a vessel and command it for a year, or so." I mentioned a "disposable captain" in the answer in this context. Maybe, connotations of the word "disposable" are a bit hyperbolic and "occasional" would be a better word but I suppose, a native speaker can be also a bit intelligent. --ŠJů (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. I agree there are times when a category should have multiple parent categories. Category:Water Transport on the Hudson River currently has Category:Hudson River and Category:Water transport by river. Some categories should really have more than two parent categories. Some only require one. If a category is going to be the only element in what might otherwise be its logical parent category, don't we skip sometimes skip creating that category?

    Yes, I understand the difference between a category and a gallery page. Note, that gallery page had the expository text the categories were missing, and a category that included that text and those elements could easily have been created.

  2. Yes, languages are full of quirks. Before he was emporer Julius Caesar wrote a book on his conquest of Trans-alpine Gaul. Schoolboys learning Latin had to read it, as an example. Its famous first sentence is usually translated as "Gaul is divided into three parts." But Caesar wrote it when mathematicians still used Roman Numerals, and the language of math was more primitive, and I have read that a literal translation of what he wrote would have been, "Gaul is quartered into three halves." Please don't worry for one moment about "maritime captains". I am glad I could figure out what you really meant.

    No, sorry, I don't think anyone has to prove that Sea captain is synonymous with Ship captain. They are both casual, colloquial terms. We don't have to include every casual, colloquial term in our category system. IMO Ship captain is less casual, less colloquial. Captain, of course, is way overloaded with meanings, in English, with Captain as an army rank, and Captain of Industry, and a bunch of other meanings, which must be disambiguated. But I don't see "Sea Captain" as one of the terms that needs to be disambiguated.

  3. Actually, someone else started Category:Ship captains. I didn't create it, I merely drew it to your attention.
  4. You thanked me for drawing your attention to what you characterize as "faults" in the categorization of Category:Space suits. I thought we had agreed everyone had an obligation to do their best to understand what their correspondents really meant. Are you telling me it didn't occur to you that I was satisfied at the then current state of categorization of Space suits, where it was not an element of Category:Astronaut or Category:Cosmonaut? Did it not occur to you that I was offering that as a counter-example showing we don't always shoehorn the tools in a field in to the category for the workmen in the field? For lots of fields both the tools and the workmen have the name of the field as their parent categories.

    Sorry, your "correction" of this "fault" seems extremely aggressive -- and disrespectful. I am perfectly happy to have you make a case for the general principle that tools commonly belong in the category for a workman in the field that normally uses them. If I list a couple of dozen examples where the parent category for the tools in a field is the name of that field, not the name of the workman, please don't tell me you are going to unilaterally "correct" all of them too?

    1. Category:Marbleworking tools
    2. Category:Milling tools
    3. Category:Textile tools
    4. Category:Hive tools
    5. Category:Beekeeping equipment
    6. Category:Harvest tools
    7. Category:Textile tools
    8. Category:Horology tools
    9. Category:Jewellery tools
    10. Category:Woodworking tools
    11. Category:Alchemical tools
    12. Category:Writing_tools
    13. Category:Mortars (tools)
    14. Category:Stonemason's tools
    15. Category:Glassworking tools
    16. Category:Silversmithing tools
    17. Category:Machining tools
    18. Category:Engraving tools
  5. Okay, your use of the term "occasional captain" -- it is due to your forgiveable lack of knowledge of the differing career paths of merchant fleet officers and naval officers.

    Lecture time. Someone who commands a vessel is entitled to the title captain. For centuries, navies have had vessels too small to merit being commanded by someone with the actual rank of captain. Depending on their size they are commanded by Lieutenants, Lieutenant Commanders, and Commanders. The early USN once had a rank "Master Commandant". Navies that operated in German had those double-barrelled German names, like Kapitan-zur-zee to distinguish between the different ranks who might command a vessel. In English, Lieutenants, Lieutenant Commanders and Commanders, who were in command of a vessel, were addressed by the courtesy title "Captain", although their actual rank was more junior than the substantive rank, Captain. I think you have confused these two terms. Naval officers can reach, or pass through, the substantive rank of Captain without ever being the captain of a ship. Naval officers hold staff positions. Naval officers hold specialty positions. Admiral Hyman Rickover, one of the USN's most important officers, was in the engineering branch, and never commanded a ship.

    For a long time every ambitious naval officer, who wanted to hold their navy's very highest rank, knew he would have to command a ship, at some point in their career. That might still be true in some navies.

    Merchant captains, on the other hand, don't hold shore based administrative positions. Nowadays merchant officers go to a merchant officer school, serve for a time as a cadet or apprentice officer, pass an exam that confirms they have the knowledge to be a captain, and get a "master's certificate". Once they have that certificate they are qualified to serve as a "mate" aboard a vessel. Depending on the size of the vessels they serve on, their job performance, the needs of their company, they can look forward to promotion from third mate to second mate, to first mate, and possibly to be the captain commanding a vessel. If their health permits, and they don't make any huge mistakes, they can expect to serve as a captain for the rest of their career.

    During a huge war, like World Wars One and Two, navies start huge ship-building programs, and have a need for experienced officers to command them. This is where the strategy of giving the best officers a crack at commanding one of the few vessel in the navy, during peace time. When a huge war comes that requires ten times as many captains, there are experienced captains to fill those roles. Huge long wars that trigger huge ship-building booms are rare, and for most officers those brief peace-time commands are all they get. Geo Swan (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the relation between "Captain' cabins" and "Captains", your work on the analysis of the tools subcategories is not very relevant, unfortunately. Only one of them is related directly to specific profession, all others are namad after activity, none of them is related to a specific function. Your analysis is not very represenative if you wanted really to analyse types of categorizative relations used at Commons. If we would have more non-personal subcategories of the item "Captains", we can create a parent category like "Captainship" or "Captaincy" for them (similarly as we have "Papacy" over "Popes"). If we have not such a parent category, the whole item of naval captains belongs into the existing category (and the non-personal subcategories - specific for captains - should be separated e.g. with a space before the sort key to be not mixed with persons by name). However, the direct relation between captain's cabin and captain's function is relevant, specific, and undeniable.
If both categories (Sea captain and Ship captains) contain maritime captains only and there is no need to distinguish some different types or levels of this title, I have nothing against merger of them under the name "Ship captains". In the law of my country, the word "kapitán" is oficially used only in the Maritime Navigation Act, not in the "Inland Navigation Act", that's why I'm ready to consider "ship captains" and "sea captains" as synonymes. --ŠJů (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Driving cabs of vehicles[edit]

I moved this category from Category:Cockpits to Category:Driving cabs of vehicles because the word "cockpits" was criticized as inappropriate for some of subcategories. However, the new name is also not ideal because some subcategories contain driving consoles which are not in cabs or the cabs where the driving console is not specific for driving. ŠJů (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The historic evolution of this category caused that it became a top category for all types of driving cabs, driving consoles and driving stands of various types of vehicles (and the subcategories used the word "cocpits" too). However, the word was criticized as inappropriate especially for rolling stock where the term "driving cab" is established (and a question arised which of vehicles have really "cockpits" and how other label can be used for various types of vehicles.

Please discuss the crucial questions:

  1. Should we keep a top category for all types of of driving cabs, driving consoles and driving stands of various types of vehicles? How name is the best for such a category?
  2. Which of its subcategories should keep the word "cockpits" and which of them should be renamed (or split by type of the driving post)? What names should be used for such renamed subcategories?
  3. Should we keep (restore) the category "Cockpits" as a subcategory of the top category? Is there some essential specific similarity of stands which are called "cockpits" toward control stands which are not called so, or this is a language randomness?

Thank you. --ŠJů (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Freedom Square (Budapest)[edit]

Square names in most other countries (France, Italty, Spain, etc) have not been translated. This should be renamed to Szabadság tér or at least Szabadság square‎. Themightyquill (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the name Szabadság Square. Einstein2 (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Franciscan Square (Budapest)[edit]

Square names in most other countries (France, Italty, Spain, etc) have not been translated. This should be renamed to Ferenciek tére or at least Ferenciek square‎. Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the name Ferenciek Square. Einstein2 (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Archduke Joseph Square[edit]

Square names in most other countries (France, Italty, Spain, etc) have not been translated. This should be renamed to József nádor tér or at least József nádor square‎. Themightyquill (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the name József nádor Square. Einstein2 (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Holy Spirit Square (Budapest)[edit]

Square names in most other countries (France, Italty, Spain, etc) have not been translated. This should be renamed to Szentlélek tér or at least Szentlélek square‎. Themightyquill (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the name Szentlélek Square. Einstein2 (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Trinity Square (Budapest)[edit]

Square names in most other countries (France, Italty, Spain, etc) have not been translated. This should be renamed to Szentháromság tér or at least Szentháromság square‎. Themightyquill (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Some square names are translated, some are not. Cf. Category:Red Square and Category:Wenceslas Square. Renaming seems unneccesary to me. Fransvannes (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if those are good counter examples, since they are rather notable squares. Prague's other squares have not been translated... not even the word square. I could see a comparison with Hősök tere/Heroes' Square, but not with the rest of the squares I nominated. My understanding was that proper names of less notable places are generally not translated. Moreover, while I realize Commons doesn't need to follow Wikipedia, even English Wikipedia has not translated en:Ferenciek tere to Category:Franciscan Square (Budapest) (incidentally, that isn't even a proper translation - it should be "Franciscans' Square" or "Square of the Franciscans"), or for that matter, en:Hősök tere to Category:Heroes' Square (Budapest). The only exception is Szabadság tér, but it doesn't appear to have a clear English equivalent, since it's listed as en:Liberty Square (Budapest) on wikipedia and Category:Freedom Square (Budapest) here. To me, it makes sense, for the sake of clarity and consistency, to just use the name on the street signs. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the name Szentháromság Square. If these square categories will be renamed, Heroes' Square should also be renamed to Hősök Square IMO. Einstein2 (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I missed Category:Main Square (Budapest), which should definitely be renamed Category:Fő ter or Category:Fő square as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Mauch Chunk, Pennsylvania[edit]

This category duplicates Category:Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania. I don't see a need to maintain separate categories for a renamed city. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  • The community was renamed in the 1920s for those unaware of the history, at which time two communities were combined into Jim Thorpe, things belonging solely to North Mauch Chunk are associatively rather hidden if the category is eliminated. BUT! Mauch Chunk was an Amerindian name that was adopted by Wm. Penns tolerant Quaker settlers. More to the point, there are and will be entries which have Mauch Chunk naming and not apply to modern day Jim Thorpe. History, especially one as storied as Mauch Chunks, however widely forgotten today, deserve a common historical title to group media that apply. // FrankB 18:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I believe the merger happened in 1953, not the 1920s. The category's front matter description is confusing and subjective. I could see an argument for using this category to depict the pre-1953 borough of Mauch Chunk, but that's confusing for a structure like Central Railroad of New Jersey Station (Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania), which has stood in the same place since 1888. These categories need to be usable by people who don't have a deep understanding of Pennsylvanian history. East Mauch Chunk exists as a separate concept and could be categorized separately, but Jim Thorpe is the lineal descendant of Mauch Chunk. I don't think that images double-categorized in both Jim Thorpe and Mauch Chunk, when one is the sub-category of another, makes sense and it doesn't reflect best practice on commons. Mackensen (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep As it is, Category:Mauch Chunk is a subcategory of Category:Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania. This makes perfect sense. Images that deal with the older town of Mauch Chunk (now currently part of Jim Thorpe) can go in the Mauch Chunk category and still be in the umbrella of the Jim Thorpe category. I can see the argument for merging the two categories but I'd perfer to separate the two and put Mauch Chunk underneath Jim Thorpe. Themfromspace (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    • However, images are double-categorized in both categories. See for example File:FAB's IMG 4662 Lehigh Coal & Navigation Corp-HQ,Mauch Chunk-Jim Thorpe,PA.JPG. That's contrary to practice on Commons. If Mauch Chunk is a sub-category of Jim Thorpe then those images should only be in Mauch Chunk. However, the images depict modern Jim Thorpe. Mauch Chunk ceased to be a legal entity decades ago. This is a confusing situation and I'm unaware of a similar structure on Commons. Note for example Category:Budapest (the city, past and present) and Category:Pest (Hungary) (historical maps and miscategorized cards from a mass upload). I have no idea what belongs in Mauch Chunk, as opposed to Jim Thorpe. If these are kept it needs to be clear to casual participants. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Historical images that show the town of Mauch Chunk before it was reincorporated as Jim Thorpe should be filed in the Mauch Chunk category. Images that show historic buildings in the old town can go in category: Old Mauch Chunk Historic District which is a subcategory of both of these. Anything else should be filed on a case by case basis with editorial discretion. I know there is some categorization with some of the subcats, but its not that big of a deal. As a navigational aid, it's much easier to keep the categories separate for people pursuing historical research. Trying to apply the generic rules of Commons in this situation is like trying to fit a square block into a round hole. Themfromspace (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Anser anser f. domestica[edit]

I think the correct name is Anser anser domesticus or "Anser anser f. domesticus" Jee 13:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Although the name is in use in some textbooks, it's actually not a valid scientific taxon at all, and we shouldn't use it; European domesticated geese are derived from both subspecies Anser anser anser and Anser anser rubrirostris, and are a hotch-potch that can't be ascribed to any single subspecies name. More accurate would be "Domesticated forms of Anser anser" or just "Domesticated Anser anser" - or, since Commons uses English language for categories that are not taxa, I'd suggest renaming to Category:Domesticated Greylag Geese. - MPF (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks MPF for your opinion. Jee 09:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow[edit]

See User talk:Ralf Roletschek#COM:CAT (german).

I renamed the category to Niederfinow boat lift giving the following reason ([9]):

correct name according to enwiki, "Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow" is only used by dewiki; no exeception should be made here according to COM:CAT

Ralf Roletschek reverted this giving the following reason ([10]):

"Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow" ist ein Eigenname

FDMS (WP: en, de) 17:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep weil:
  1. es ist ein Eigenname
  2. Wikidata legt nicht fest, was ein Eigenname ist
  3. Boote werden nur in Ausnahmefällen geschleust, das Hebewerk ist für Schiffe gebaut
  4. "Schiffsfahrstuhl" ist in der Literatur zwar gebräuchlich, allerdings immer in Anführungsstrichen
  5. wenn ein englischer Redirect existiert, gibt es keinen Grund, ein deutsches Objekt nicht auch deutsch zu bezeichnen.
  6. Der benachbarte Neubau heißt "Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow Nord" und nicht anders, das haben der damalige Bundesverkehrsminister und der brandenburgische Ministerpräsident bei der Grundsteinlegung so festgelegt: "Wir taufen dich..."
Derartige Umbenennungen führen nur dazu, daß niemand mehr was wiederfindet. Und man verliert massiv die Lust, etwas beizutragen, wenn einem so in die Beine gegrätscht wird. Weit über 90% der über 500 Bilder sind von mir und meinem Kumpel. --Ralf Roleček 19:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Boat heißt/means Schiff [11], boat lift heißt/means Schiffshebewerk [12]. |FDMS (WP: en, de) 19:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Soll etwa sowas: Category:Sbratření (Vrchlického sady) auch künstlich englisch gemacht werden? Das ist nicht mein Werk, habe es nur bemerkt, weil da ein Bild von mir drin gelandet ist. Und es ist richtig, daß das tschechische Denkmal tschechisch benannt wird. --Ralf Roleček 20:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Kategorienamen von obigem Typ sollten nur in äußersten Ausnahmefällen verwendet werden, da sie mir zum Beispiel nicht mehr als eine zufällige Zahlenkombination sagen. Da mir völlig unklar ist was der Titel sagen soll kann ich auch nicht entscheiden, ob der Name in diesem Fall geeignet ist oder nicht, das könnte ich nur wenn ich entweder die Sprache sprechen würde oder Interwikilinks vorhanden wären, was beides im Gegensatz zum Niederfinow boat lift nicht der Fall ist. |FDMS (WP: en, de) 20:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Nicht jeder spricht Englisch. Aber Tschechen sprechen Tschechisch, Deutsche sprechen Deutsch und Chinesen Chinesisch. --Ralf Roleček 22:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Mehr Tschechen sprechen Englisch als Commons-User gesamt Tschechisch. Viele Deutsche und Tschechen sprechen besser Englisch als ihre Haupt-Landessprache. |FDMS (WP: en, de) 06:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as Category:Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow because it's a proper name (Eigenname). --Stepro (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not the first one claiming that, so please provide evidence. All I can see is that the german Wikipedia is the only project calling it "Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow" – if there were English websites using "Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow" things would be different. |FDMS (WP: en, de) 18:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Beim Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow handelt es sich um einen Eigennamen, der so auch in amtlichen Flur- und Schifffahrtskarten eingetragen ist. --Mogelzahn (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Notice boards[edit]

Appears to duplicate Category:Bulletin boards. I am not sure if there is some subtle difference I can't see but it appears to be a dialectal difference rather than an actual difference. Suggest merge - not fussed which way Mattinbgn (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:الرسم والاظهار المعماري[edit]

Categories should be in English, especially when they have no specific Arabic content 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

we can simply translate it to "Architectural Drawing and Representation" --hasanisawi (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Kingdom Centre (Riyadh)[edit]

All images in the category are an image of a Saudi Arabian building. According to this page, this is considered a copyright violation and all images in the category are copyright and FoP violations and should be discussed here. 20:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Internet applications[edit]

Should this be for application software for use with Internet, or for Web applications (applications whose interface consist of Web pages)? AVRS (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Internet applications should be anything that uses the Internet. This includes the entire Web, and also all of the other Internet protocols. It shouldn't be a subcategory of "Websites by type" or "Web services" as it is now. --ghouston (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure whether this category is supposed to refer to software, as in w:en:Application software, or "application" in the more general sense of the word. If it's the former, then a lot of stuff doesn't belong here, I guess including server software and things that refer to entire protocols, like Category:Usenet. Category:E-mail isn't even a particular protocol, or specific to the Internet. --ghouston (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Modern movement in the United States[edit]

Seems to me that for this and its subcategories, "Modern movement architecture'" would be clearer than just "Modern movement". This appears to be the usage in the parent category Category:Modern movement architecture by country. Jmabel ! talk 22:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I wholeheartedly agree. "Modern movement" could mean many different things without the "architecture" to define it. "'Modernist architecture" would be even better, but I can live with "Modern movement architecture". Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • According to the description of the category, it should be really about modern movement architecture, not about whole modernism in painting, music, literature, industry, society etc. But it has also many subcategories which should be also renamed. --ŠJů (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, it would be nice if the usage was consistent across all the country articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
      • ŠJů, exactly. As I said, "this and its subcategories". - Jmabel ! talk 02:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
        • And also the subcategories of the parent category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree. This category, and all its subcategories, should be renamed as proposed for the sake of clarity and consistency with its parent category. Farragutful (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support moves per everyone else. I would prefer "modernist architecture" like BMK, but we definitely need to get "architecture" into the category name, and all of these are better than the ambiguous "modern architecture". Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pile drilling machines[edit]

Category:Drilling machines currently says: "Piling machines should be in Category:Piling machines, but some piling machines using rotating drilling tools might feature in both categories." That didn't make sense to me, so I created this category, which I thought would be appropriate for the intersection of Category:Piling machines and Category:Drilling machines. I won't move previously existing images into the new category until this discussion is closed. Geo Swan (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  • OK. I've waited over 6 months, without a closure. Should I wait for a closure? Geo Swan (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks reasonable enough to me, and after no opposition in more than half a year, I think you can assume consent. --rimshottalk 08:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Board for Production Awards (United States)[edit]

Merge with Category:Army-Navy Production Award ? Djembayz (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe the proper name is "Board for Production Awards". Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ohio township route shield templates[edit]

This is an overly specific category. This should be upmerged into Category:Township route shield templates since that category only contains this subcategory. –Fredddie 17:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Upmerge, per nom. --AdmrBoltz 02:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:People looking left[edit]

Category:People looking left / right should be considered from the looking person's point of view. If I look left, I will expose my right side to the photographer. All the people in this category do not look left, they look right. (same with Category:People facing right / left)

It's a kidding category, but if it's there it should be correct. Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Usage seems to indicate it is not a "kidding category". Viewpoint is from person viewing, not necessarily the person shown's left/right. A hat note on the cat explaining this would IMO be appropriate, but I don't think organizing according from viewer's perspective is inherently wrong, nor only considering the person depicted's personal left/right would be inherently "correct". Either would be a choice of perspective. The current usage is in line with other media in "left" and "right" parent categories. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of Portuguese nobility[edit]

This category should be renamed "Coats of arms of families of Portugal" to be consistent with all other entries in the parent category Coats of arms of families by country. Besides that, the entire contents of the category Heráldica familiar should be moved here and subsequently eliminated. Possibly it is not historically correct to consider "nobles" all the families with coat of arms, but I think in terms of the organization of Commons makes more sense. JotaCartas (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds resonable = Symbol support vote.svg Support. Gunnex (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Power generation, transportation and distribution[edit]

There is no plausible reason to bundle generation, transportation and distribution but leave out for example storage and use. The bundle category should be split up again. Tetris L (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Based on wrong label in OpenMedia. Lumi i Dushit is a cotribuary to the river Gomsiqa. And it should be Dushi, not Dushit as this is a genetive case. --Albinfo (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:University libraries in the United States[edit]

Should this category be renamed to University and college libraries in the United States or should there be another category for College libraries in the United States? Mjrmtg (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. The name isn't hugely significant, since this can easily include all college libraries. The type of institution (or its name) isn't really relevant to the images in the category. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral: It's "en:Category:University and college academic libraries in the United States" on English Wikipedia, and some people would argue that most colleges are not universities (that is, 4-year degree institutions), but all universities are (or are made up of) "colleges". "Category:College libraries in the United States" would be the common term in the United States, but that makes it incongruous with other countries, where some might even interpret "college library" as equivalent to what Americans would call a "high school library". "Category:Academic libraries in the United States" would sound OK, but then that would take it out of Category:University and college buildings in the United States because it would definitely be interpreted as including grade school/high school libraries if it were named that way. (Maybe that should exist as a parent category though.) --Closeapple (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Concretion stones[edit]

merge with Category:Concretion, as its the same concept Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Screenshots of Translate extension[edit]

Should probably be merged upward with Category:Translate extension. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree --Ioannis Protonotarios (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
What about Category:Screenshots of Translate extension-el? --rimshottalk 21:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand in art[edit]

Covered by Category:Art of New Zealand. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this should perhaps be discussed principally.

My definition would be that "Art of New Zealand" means "art created in New Zealand/by New Zealand's artists", whereas "New Zealand in art" would mean "art which has New Zealand for a subject, but could also be created in other places resp. by artists from other countries". And analogue for other countries and regions of the world.Reykholt (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree to Reykholt. The request is illogical and should be withdrawn. Take for comparison the simple case Category:Moon in art and crosswise - like Alan's train of thought Category:Art of moon. How many artists of the moon are known? --Metilsteiner (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Islands of the Pacific Ocean in art[edit]

Delete since it is not part of a series and the only sub-cat is up for deletion. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:User BG[edit]

Reasons for discussion request: cf. Commons_talk:Babel#Extension:Babel, broken since 2014-01-07, when this category was erroneously created. The category is populated by {{#babel:...|bg-X|...}} instead of Category:User bg. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that deleting this category would fix this problem? --rimshottalk 22:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Dunno, I can only say that {{#babel:User BG-n}} does not more work since it was created. The bug could be elsewhere, and just happened to create the bogus upper case categories. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The first user contained in this category that I checked had a babel box with {{#babel:en-N|fr-1|es-0|BG-0|ANI-0|VG-0‎|PH-1}}. I think BG means Bitmap Graphics in this case, not Bulgarian (compare with VG for Vector Graphics). Might the babel template need to be extended to support this ability too? --rimshottalk 23:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
On the template side {{Babel|BG-1|tlh-0}} (example) works as always and as it should, i.e., nothing is wrong with {{User BG-1}}, {{User tlh-0}}, etc. On the extension side #babel:tlh-0 always ignored the existing template using its own English text instead of Klingon. The extension got BG-1 always right until January, 6. One day later the bogus category was created, and BG-1&Co. failed. You can see the working templates on {{User/Language2}} and {{User/Abilities}}. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
As a test, I have deleted the page. It was instantly re-created by User:Babel AutoCreate and the user boxes still didn't work correctly. --rimshottalk 21:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, the category appears to be less populated now, as it was in January after this oddity started. Mostly folks like McZusatz, where I guess that they want BG-n for bitmap graphics, not bulgarian. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The same is the case with Category:User AF which is Afrikaans (Category:User af) versus Category:Audio file editors with its subcategories AF-0, AF-1, AF-2, AF-3. There the software puts the Afrikaans template onto the user page, when someone puts these into the babel extension. These categories have to be deleted, but before that, the user pages have to be fixed. --October wind (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Maps by year[edit]

With our current scheme, Category:1923 maps could include both maps created in 1923 (but depicting 1910), and maps created in 2011 (but depicting 1923). Would it be over-categorization to create new sub-categories for every year along the lines of Category:Maps showing 1923 and Category:Maps created in 1923 ? Please note that many of these categories only contain one or two files. Thanks for your input. Themightyquill (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I would support such a split Oxyman (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


edit Commons:Categories for discussion/summary list

Current Requests[edit]

Older Requests[edit]

These requests are older than six months and still active.