Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2007/09

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

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
2010 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
2012 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
2013 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
2014 01
[edit]
02
[edit]
03
[edit]
04
[edit]
05
[edit]
06
[edit]
07
[edit]
08
[edit]
09
[edit]
10
[edit]
11
[edit]
12
[edit]
Archive September 2007


This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Private Lace Collection of Carolus[edit]

These category contains a few pictures of lace. The category is the *only* category containing these pictures. The category name however does not reflect the real world characteristics of these pictures however. The category is *only* a category grouping a few pictures made by a user, as is clear from its name. Therefore, 2 solutions:

1: this category can be removed, and the pictures are moved to category:Lace.

2: maybe the category can be kept (there are other categories on wikipedia grouping pictures from one user, or grouping pictures from some source, with some license, made with some software or so ?). But then all pictures in this category should also have category:lace added, so they are *also* part of the normal categories right ?

I think 2 is a valid solution, and 1 is not necessary ?

Also, the category description violates the GFDL license. No one can claim someone has to ask permission to modify something ? --87.106.27.17 20:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No it does not violates the GFDL license; you can change the pics, not the cats or the text. Like it is right now it is fair, My name is obviously written, when you cat all in cat: lace, you start with dubble cats, i'll never accept that my private collection is categorised as ordanary 'Lace'; see also: The Collection of Friedrich II von Preußen; here the paintings are aswell presented as a collection, with underlines the value of the collection. Besides why Am I having an discussion with an anonymus person, show yourself! Carolus 22:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This collection does not look notable enough to have its own topic category as a subcategory to Category:lace. Therefor I think the category should be considered a user category, as described in Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy. Such user categories should not be included in the topic category tree as subcategories (as discussed here). So I think solution 2 is the better option. /Ö 08:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
What? I gave my private collection to commons, and you say that it does not look notable enough? What the hell???Carolus 09:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with User:Ö. This user isn't a notable person, so his personal maintenance categories should be part of the Category:User galleries you pointed to, and not the normal categories. This can even be a bit redundant, as the user already has a gallery with the pictures User:Carolus/Lace Collection, but that his decision how he wants to organize his user space pages. The category can not be a part of category:Lace I think, as the user itself is not notable to deserve an own category, and the pictures shoudl be accessible through category:lace in a normal categorization. Also not that cries like "!!!!!!!!!DO NOT TOUCH WITOUT PERMISSION OF CAROLUS !!!!!!!!!!!" in the category description are completely incompatible with the GFDL. Regards, <name removed> --81.169.137.209 11:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I stop with negotiating, because my privacy is given public by 81.169.137.209!! I do not continue until the anonymous guy/girl is blocked! Carolus 15:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I must say I agree with Ö here. Category:Private Lace Collection of Carolus should be categorized as a user gallery, and all images in it should, additionally, be put into Category:Lace. As for the GFDL issue: images are allowed to have a number of free licenses, among them GFDL, all text must be GFDL. Keep in mind that you do not own any text here, if you create a category or a gallery you automatically accept that people are allowed to change them. You do own, in a way, your pictures, of course, but you cannot specify what shall be done with them. Once you publish them under the GFDL they can be used in many ways without your explicit approval, including putting them into a different category. --rimshottalk 10:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy. The solution acording to that page is to add Category:Lace to all images and remove Category:Lace from Category:Private Lace Collection of Carolus. By the way all of these images seem to be in User:Carolus/Lace Collection already. /Lokal_Profil 22:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
So in fact there is no problem. No changes have to be made. Anonimous contributor using (two) different ip-s both blocked on nl.wiki in november 2006 as sockpuppet and open proxy, has clearly started his trolling actions to harm Carolus (also a user from nl.wiki). Administrators on Commons are kindly requested to take notice of these facts and think twice before rewarding this attack on Carolus en run the risk to shy away this art-loving user who has been so kind and selfless to upload lots of unique en often beautiful material - like the collection on hand-made Belgium lace - and who is definitely not a native speaker of the lingua franca on Commons. There is no harm in having this private collection and no need to take is apart. If administrators think there is, instructions on how to make changes should be given in Dutch. Kind regards - Aiko 11:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Lokal Profil's solution looks fine to me. Carolus will have to take no action himself, we will add the appropriate category. --rimshottalk 09:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I just added Category:Lace to these images, but before I saw the link to this discussion. Nevertheless I intend to leave it, as it's quite inappropriate to have a sub-category of Lace which is not a type of lace or other scientific subdivision but simply a reference to the user that has uploaded the images. The comment "!!!!!!!!!DO NOT TOUCH WITOUT PERMISSION OF CAROLUS !!!!!!!!!!!" in the category description is in clear violation of the GFDL license which automatically applies to all text on this site (see the wording that appears below the edit box whenever any text is being typed in - not only image text but any text). I have accordingly deleted that warning. I'll leave it to others to decide whether to de-link that private category from the lace category. --MichaelMaggs 19:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Lokal Profil. Since the contents of Category:Private Lace Collection of Carolus is now categorized in category:Lace, I think that the discussed category is no more useful, therefore my opinion is: empty and delete. --Juiced lemon 19:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Something does not look very consistent: all sorts of user categories are allowed but not this one. And if the lace is a real private collection, what then ? --Foroa 20:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the current policy is one user category per user, but this category shold only be a subcategory of Category:User galleries and not be mixed into the normal categories. /Lokal_Profil 21:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


This is not clear in Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy, so there is probably no clear reason to delete such a cat. This "private stuff" shouting is obviously against the commons spirit and GFDL. Nevertheless, iy is quite possible that this lace is part of a real private collection, in which case it can have its own category I should think. --Foroa 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't care about private collections, unless these are famous ones, hence referenced. --Juiced lemon 21:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Consider Category:Taken by Lar and its subcategories. We do not prevent people from putting images in user categories, the restriction is that the image should not be in ONLY that category (or it's not very useful to others) and that the user categories should not be commingled with topic categories (as that's confusing to others). So, in my view, this category could stay... but the images need to be reviewed and added to other categories (Category:Lace or perhaps subcats or related cats) as well. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Images are already in category:Lace so then the only thing which remains is to remove category:Lace from the user category, which I just did. /Lokal_Profil 00:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

NOW I STOP WITH COMMONS! YOU CAN FORGET MORE PICS OF LACE, ROYAL PALACE PAINTINGS ...Carolus 13:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Carolus, it's unfortunate you feel that way. The actual result here is that the items were put into a more generic category, and left in the user specific category. That is common practice. It happened to me too and at the time I was a bit put off by it but I saw the logic. You are free to contribute or not, as you like, and you are free to license your images in a way that requires attribution, if you are concerned with credit, but we have to do things in a way that benefits the most people. I hope you understand, and every best wish in future. This discussion has reminded me I have to take some pictures of my mother's bobbin lace and lacemaking equipment... nowhere near as nice as your collection to be sure. ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Proposal new Category:flag photographies[edit]

The Category:flags and his subcategories contain numerous designed flags, and an increasing number of flag photographies. For these photographies a separate category is desirable. That is why I propose Category:Flag photographies and corresponding subcategories, similar to the coat of arms photographies, which for Germany have been put in the Category:coat of arms photographies from Germany and his subcategories. Havang 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, what is photographies supposed to mean? The plural of photograph is photographs. As for the usefulness of a new category: I think it can be useful, especially for very crowded categories of flags. I would propose a new category tree as follows:
  • Flags
    • Photographs of flags
    • Flags by country
      • Photographs of flags by country
      • Flags of Italy
        • Photographs of flags of Italy
... and so on, with all Photographs of flags by/of XXX being in two categories: one from the photographs of flags tree and one from the normal flags tree. That way, there is no need for the photographs-of-flags tree to be complete. --rimshottalk 13:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think your proposal for a category structure is good. 'Photographies' is probably only a mistake by a non-native English speaker (in some languages 'photography' and 'photograph' is the same word (and the word sounding like the English 'photograph' means 'photographer')). /Ö 14:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that occured to me as well (Fotografien - Photographies), after I wrote the reply. I'm a native speaker of German, so I probably should have seen that earlier. --rimshottalk 16:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have added a category discussion link to Category:Flags and the flags project. I think we will get more input soon ;) --rimshottalk 13:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
... or so I thought :| --rimshottalk 12:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I support this. If you want to start it up, I'll help you populate the categories. Cheers, Rocket000 18:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I've created the tree for Italian flags, down to Category:Photographs of flags of regions of Italy and for German flags down to Category:Photographs of flags of Germany. Feel free to populate those, and to create more as you see the need. --rimshottalk 11:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, very good all this. photographies is a gallicism, I (and the Germans) mixed up languages in the Babel of commons, sorry. Havang 11:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the creation of these categories is up and running now. --rimshottalk 11:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category for Korean city/county[edit]

When we create Korean city/county, we should add their province name. Because of:

  1. We must show where it exists.
  2. Perhaps their spelling is same as other city/county on other countries. (For example, China)

If you have an objection, please show your opinions. Thank you. LERK (Talk / Contributions / Mail) 08:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No. When the English Wikipedia don't need to show the province name, Wikipedia Commons don't need that neither. The general principle is that we don't add disambiguation suffixes when there is nothing to disambiguate. --Juiced lemon 08:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguation suffixes disrupt the reading, make browsing, classification and maintenance very difficult. --Juiced lemon 08:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
In your opinion, When we create the category of Anyang city, what should we do? 'Anyang' exists also in China. LERK (Talk / Contributions / Mail) 08:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Because English Wikipedia does not use province names why would that be justification for doing the same here - multi lingual, multi project Commons? --Herby talk thyme 08:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If you assert that lions are spotted, I don't go to demonstrate that you are wrong. It belongs to you to prove your assertion at first. Similarly, it belongs to you to justify why we would not do the same that (generally) in the English Wikipedia, in adding disambiguation suffixes when they are not useful.
From experience, I know that disambiguation suffixes are painful to manage, because they must be kept in any “compound” category. We have no chance to enforce such rule if most suffixes are useless.
Therefore, suffixes must not be unnecessarily added. Suffixes were added to German cities names, then they were finally removed.
User:LERK, what is the problem with Category:Anyang, Gyeonggi-do? --Juiced lemon 09:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a pointer to where it says we must follow en wp - failing which I'm afraid it is up to you to justify your position --Herby talk thyme 09:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a pointer to where it says we must not follow en wp. Adding useless disambiguation suffixes is not a current custom in Wikimedia Commons, so I am afraid your request is not sensible: if you have an odd idea, it belongs to you to justify that your intentions have some sense. --Juiced lemon 09:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankly in a multi lingual, multi project Commons I find your idea and lack of justification very poor indeed. You cannot deal with things just be saying "I am right" all the time. This project covers all Wikis and all languages - you must be prepared to listen to other views and to justify your position if you expect to be listened to. Your approach, not for the first time, is non collaborative to a high degree --Herby talk thyme 09:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Since we must distinguish by adding its province name, wouldn't you think it good to add its province name also to all of other cities/counties categories, would you? LERK (Talk / Contributions / Mail) 10:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My answer to User:LERK arguments:

1. We must show where it exists.

  • Wikimedia Commons is NOT an encyclopedia. Teach something is not in the objectives of the project. If you want to learn something about the subject of a category, use one of the provided interwiki links. Country subdivisions are classified in appropriate categories (by location), so there is no ambiguity regarding their location.

2. Perhaps their spelling is same as other city/county on other countries. (For example, China)

  • Disambiguation cases about encyclopedic subjects are already managed in the English Wikipedia. Major places names have no disambiguation suffixes, like Category:Paris. Suffixes are used only for places of lesser importance, like Paris, Texas. It's unlikely we'll discover new major places to disambiguate. --Juiced lemon 10:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is NOT an encyclopedia., so we must write simply where it exists. With its province name, we can know where it exists simply. Some users cannot read English. If there is a duplicate spelling city/county, we must distinguish for example Anyang and Anyang. "Some city/county category is with its province name, but some city/county category is without its province name" this system causes confusion. Unified rule is required. LERK (Talk / Contributions / Mail) 10:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a couple of observations:
  1. Categories on commons are used to group files that address a specific subject. Giving the category a name that describes the subject is all that's required, and doesn't amount to an encyclopedic entry.
  2. Wikipedias don't need categories to be as specific as commons does. For example, a Wikipedia should only have one article about a particular species of plant, while commons might have hundreds of files pertaining to a particular species of plant. --SB_Johnny | PA! 06:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Herbythyme asked:

Because English Wikipedia does not use province names why would that be justification for doing the same here - multi lingual, multi project Commons?

Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia are different projects, and there are independent each over. Therefore, each projet is managed according to their own rules or guidelines.

However, for efficiency reasons, we generally use the English Wikipedia as a reference in Commons Wikimedia. For example, we can use the English Wikipedia to learn that Ansan is a city in Gyeonggi-do, a province of South Korea. Note that at least another place has the same name (homonym): Ansan (Gers), and that no suffix was added to the South Korean city name, since Ansan (South Korea) is a major city, while Ansan (Gers) has only 63 inhabitants.

So, we can use the English Wikipedia in order:

  • to know if a given name has homonyms in the English language
  • to note the result of the possible disambiguation process (this process is time consuming, the more reason is that we have not disambiguation rules)

In Commons, we add disambiguations suffixes only when necessary. Otherwise, near all category names would have suffixes. Therefore, the correct category name for the city Ansan in South Korea is Category:Ansan.

I think you don't appreciate the terrible mess which would result from user:LERK's proposal. Consider just this small maintenance problem in the English Wikipedia: Anyang, Gyeonggi, city of Gyeonggi-do. --Juiced lemon 15:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading this quickly - so we make our own rules but when you think we should follow en wp that becomes the rules, if it doesn't suit you then we don't do it like that. Little time today but tomorrow I will post in a more read place about this aspect of Commons JL for my clarification as much as anything. It is a difficult subject and requires broad community views --Herby talk thyme 13:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Closed, this isn't going anywhere. --rimshottalk 18:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Italian regional flags to Category:Flags of regions of Italy[edit]

I propose merging Category:Italian regional flags to Category:Flags of regions of Italy as both categories have the same content. Pending the decision in the flag photography thread above, we could also move Category:Italian regional flags to Category:Photographs of flags of regions of Italy, as it contains only photographs. --rimshottalk 09:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

They don't have the same content: those photos are both photos of flags and photos of the parade, so the categoy is linked by both the flags and the parade categories. Merging would "detach" a part of the parade photos, or include material unrelated to the parade in the category tree. --Jollyroger 08:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Category:Italian regional flags is in only one category, and that is Category:Flags. There is also no page that links there. That makes me wonder what you mean by the categoy is linked by both the flags and the parade categories. Is Italian regional flags the name of the parade? --rimshottalk 11:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Move, not merge. I prefer to keep flagdesigns and photographs of flags in parallel but separate category trees under the general Category:flags. What name to choose? flags on photographs or photographs of flags? and for subcategories: flags of regions of Italy on photographs or photographs of flags of regions of Italy? I prefer emphasis on flags. Havang 12:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see those images are all in the parade category. I thought they were in a subcat linked by the parade page. Sorry for misunderstanding. Anytway, I agree with Havang, it is better to keep schemes and photos in two different categories. --Jollyroger 13:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I have now created some of the Photographs of flags tree, but I still do not really know what Category:Italian regional flags is supposed to be about. I guess it's one of the following:
  1. Italian regional flags - in that case move to Category:Photographs of flags of regions of Italy
  2. Flags of regions of Italy that were photographed during this particular parade - in that case, rename to a category name that reflects this.
Jollyroger, as you created the category, could you tell me which one it is? --rimshottalk 11:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Why not put all parade photographs in the parade 2007 category and give all photographs with a flag (not only those with a region flag, there are more flags photgraphed) one secundary category in the photographs of flags tree. Also add in the item page a description about what flag is pictured, that is as important as classification in a category. Havang 09:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the category was meant to disperse the parade 2007 category, which was way too crowded. That's why it's no solution to put the images back in there. --rimshottalk 11:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This category need not be merged with flags of regions of italy, these are not flag images but images of flags in parade which is different from the proposed merge category. 16:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
All merged and done
--Foroa (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Holt tractor[edit]

Copied from here: "Holt tractor --Rcbutcher 11:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)"

I gather this is a request to delete Category:Holt tractor in favor of Category:Holt artillery tractor. --rimshottalk 11:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
yes, that's my intention. We need a specific category for Holt artillery tractor because it had many uses. Rcbutcher 11:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds alright to me. We can leave Category:Holt tractor as a redirect.--rimshottalk 12:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Holt artillery tractors is the plural of Holt artillery tractor, categories should in general use the plural. I suggest renaming to Category:Holt artillery tractors per naming conventions, with redirects at Category:Holt tractor, Category:Holt tractors, and Category:Holt artillery tractor. Alternatively, Category:Holt artillery tractors could be a subcategory of Category:Holt tractors.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
✓ Done I have created Category:Holt artillery tractors, moved the images there, and created category redirects for the remaining categories. I do not think that Category:Holt artillery tractors needs to be a subcategory of Category:Holt tractors before there are any images of Holt tractors that aren't artillery tractors. --rimshottalk 17:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Taxi[edit]

Taxis is the plural of taxi, categories should in general use the plural. Sugest renaming to Category:Taxis. /Lokal_Profil 14:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support per naming conventions --rimshottalk 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per naming conventions.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
move requested --rimshottalk 21:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The same thing should go for the subcategory Category:Water taxi --> Category:Water taxis. /Lokal_Profil 13:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I have added it to the request. --rimshottalk 19:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
✓ Done --rimshottalk 08:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/09[edit]

Category:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/09 was created by following the "add entry" link in Template:Cfd. Please see Template:Cfd, and use Template talk:Cfd#"add entry"_link for discussion. Thanks.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What shall we do with that page once this discussion is closed, and it is pretty much closed? Just remove the cfd note and archive this discussion? --rimshottalk 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Please delete it in favor of the following copied from it (but further indented and with section headings that actually work). I fixed the original problem with this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:2007 Rugby World Cup France vs Argentine[edit]

2007 Rugby World Cup France vs Argentine --PeeJay 09:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The file was speedily deleted. --rimshottalk 11:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Holt tractor[edit]

Holt tractor --Rcbutcher 11:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

copied to Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/09/Category:Holt tractor --rimshottalk 11:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Annonaceae (Indexed)[edit]

  1. This is with respect to Category:Annonaceae & Category:Annonaceae (Indexed). Could somebody educate me as to why we have two similar categories for each Plant family? Category Annonaceae already exists and some images are same while some are different in the indexed category. A person who searches the family category may not find all the images in one place. Cant we have ordering by using pages or subcategories for species instead.
  2. The category page of 'Annonaceae (Indexed)' is itself part of 'Category:Plantae by family (Indexed)' which states that :
This category is for photos of plants which have been indexed in a plant family article.
What do they mean by indexed?
  1. Do we have any kind of WikiProject on Commons for discussing such issues? Where can I converse with dedicated plant-image contributers?
  2. Though I have listed Annonaceae (Indexed) for deletion, (I had to complete the procedure), I am looking for help in understanding rather than deletion of any categories.

--AshLin 11:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The page User:LifeBot has a lot of information on that topic. The project you are looking for is probably Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life. --rimshottalk 13:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Weighting scales[edit]

Rename/move/whatever to Category:Weighing scales per Weighing scale and w:Weighing scale because the images are of scales that weigh (determine mass), rather than anything having to do with the weighting of certain audio or electromagnetic frequencies in some sort of filter. Alternatively, rename/move/whatever to Category:Weighing machines per w:Weighing machine and wikt:weighing machine.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that w:Weighing machine redirects to w:Weighing scale, I support rename to Category:Weighing scales. --rimshottalk 10:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It has now been renamed. --Glenn 11:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Mosque[edit]

First of all, the contents of this category should be moved to Category:Mosques. Secondly, there is a gallery there as well. It should either be deleted or added to Mosque. We can then make this page either a redirect or a category redirect.--rimshottalk 21:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This just looks like somebody didn't quite understand how categories work. I'll do the merge. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 22:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I have made a category redirect to avoid confusion in the future. --rimshottalk 08:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Kicks[edit]

Suggest renaming to Category:Kicking (same form as other categories in Category:Locomotion) and that the too specific Category:Kick (football) be deleted. /Lokal_Profil 22:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that kicking is a form of locomotion, couldn't we just remove it from that category? Also, while you could technically say that this guy is kicking the boards, wouldn't one more correctly speak of performing a kick? I think that kicks is a more suitable category for these images - consistency should not be a reason to use a bad name. --rimshottalk 13:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you call it, I agree it has nothing to do with locomotion and should be removed from there --Tony Wills 21:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
My misstake. Just take it out of locomotion. Still think the current category name is missleading though. As can be seen from it's contents it's mixing kicks (martial arts type) with kicking (say kicking a football). A name which would destinguish between the two would be better. /Lokal_Profil 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I deleted Category:Kick (football) because it was too specific like Lokal said, It wasn't being used, anyway. Rocket000 11:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Category moved to Category:Kicking; former category left as a redirect. 哦,是吗?(висчвын) 17:40, 17 May 2008 (GMT)